Exploring how process oriented guided inquiry
learning elicits learners’ reasoning about
stoichiometry
by
Charles Mamombe
Submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree,
PHILOSOPHIAE DOCTOR
in the
Faculty of Education
at the
UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA
Supervisor: Dr. K.C. Mathabathe
Co-supervisor: Prof. E. Gaigher
March 2021
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
i
Declaration
I declare that the thesis, which I hereby submit for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in
science, mathematics, and technology education at the University of Pretoria, is my
own work and has not previously been submitted by me for a degree at this or any
other tertiary institution.
Student: Charles Mamombe Signature
26 February 2021
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
iii
Dedication
I dedicate this research to all teachers, lecturers, and researchers in general, who
thrive to seek effective teaching methods which lead to meaningful learning I dedicate
this work to organizations who sponsor research which aim to provide improvement of
understanding of learners. Most importantly I dedicate this work to the parents who
gave consent for their children to participate in the current study, and to the teachers
and learners who took part in this study.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
iv
Acknowledgements
I acknowledge the financial support from the National Research Foundation (NRF),
which enabled the study to materialize. Studying, especially where travelling is
involved, demands a lot of money. I sincerely thank the NRF for considering my study
worthwhile for financing. I got encouragement from that support.
I would like to acknowledge the principals, the teachers, and the learners of the two
schools who participated in this study. I also acknowledge the parents of the grade 11
learners who participated in this study. Without them, I would not have made it.
I also express my gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. K.C. Mathabathe and Prof. E.
Gaigher for supporting me throughout the study. Their support and constructive
criticism motivated me to produce this thesis.
I also thank my late wife, Agnes Mamombe, who encouraged me when the work was
too hard for me. Though she did not get to see the final product, her contribution in the
first two years was immense.
Above all, I thank the Lord God Almighty for the grace and strength He gave me to do
my studies. I would not have managed to do anything if God’s Grace was not upon
me.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
v
Abstract
This study explored how Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) elicits
learners’ reasoning about stoichiometry. The study further explored the perceptions of
both teachers and learners over the use of POGIL in the field of stoichiometry. A
qualitative case study was carried out at two conveniently and purposely sampled
township schools in Pretoria, South Africa. For this purpose, two 11th grade physical
sciences classes (N=48) and their respective teachers who were previously trained to
teach using POGIL, gave consent to participate in the study. Data were collected using
pre-intervention test, post-intervention test and lesson observations, as well as focus
group interviews for learners and individual interviews for teachers. All data were
coded and analysed with the aid of ATLAS.ti software for qualitative data analysis.
The pre-intervention test indicated that the learners lacked reasoning in solving
stoichiometry questions. The post-intervention test results indicated that the learners
improved their mathematical reasoning and achievement. The findings from the
observations indicate that the learners were excited, motivated and actively engaged
in their work, assisting one another by endeavouring to answer questions supported
with justification. The findings from the focus group interviews indicate that the learners
were excited to learn using POGIL and wished to use it in other subjects such as
mathematics. The learners anticipated an improvement in their grades and
understanding of stoichiometry. The findings from the teachers’ interviews indicated
that they too appreciated using POGIL. They found POGIL useful in reducing
misconceptions, increasing learner participation, increasing understanding and
achievement, and felt that their learners were interested in utilising POGIL as a
learning tool. The results indicated that POGIL increased learners’ reasoning,
understanding, achievement, active participation, and interest in learning.
Keywords:
Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL), active learning, reasoning,
understanding, learning cycle, perception, cooperative learning
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
vii
Acronyms
CAPS – Curriculum and assessment policy statement
DoBE – Department of Basic Education
GIL – Guided inquiry learning
ICAP – Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive framework
ICAPD – Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive, Disengaged framework
LC – Learning cycle
NCS - National curriculum statement
POGIL – Process oriented guided inquiry learning
PO – Process oriented
SACMEQ – Southern and Eastern African Consortium for Monitoring Educational
Quality
TIMSS – Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
ZPD – Zone of Proximal Development
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
viii
Table of Contents
Declaration .............................................................................................................. i
Ethical clearance ..................................................................................................... ii
Dedication ............................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. iv
Abstract .................................................................................................................. v
Language editor’s disclaimer .................................................................................. vi
Acronyms ............................................................................................................... vii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................. viii
Table of figures…………………………………………………………………….. ...... xii
Table of appendices ............................................................................................. xiii
List of tables ........................................................................................................ xvii
1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background ................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Research context .......................................................................................... 3
1.4 Stoichiometry in the South African curriculum ............................................... 4
1.5 Problem statement ........................................................................................ 6
1.6 Rationale and significance of the study ......................................................... 7
1.7 Aim and research questions ........................................................................ 10
1.8 Assumptions................................................................................................ 10
1.9 The scope of the study ................................................................................ 11
1.10 Researcher’s personal perspective .......................................................... 12
1.11 Outline of thesis ....................................................................................... 15
2 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 17
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 17
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
ix
2.2 Stoichiometry .............................................................................................. 17
2.3 Bloom’s Taxonomy ...................................................................................... 18
2.4 Active Learning ........................................................................................... 23
2.5 Inquiry-based Learning ............................................................................... 25
2.6 POGIL ......................................................................................................... 27
2.6.1 The Learning Cycle .............................................................................. 30
2.6.2 Process Oriented Education ................................................................. 32
2.6.3 Advantages of POGIL ........................................................................... 38
2.6.4 Shortcomings and challenges of implementation ................................. 39
2.6.5 Information Processing Model .............................................................. 41
2.6.6 Cognitive Processing ............................................................................ 44
2.6.7 Reasoning ............................................................................................ 46
2.6.8 Metacognitive Processing ..................................................................... 51
2.7 Conceptual framework ................................................................................ 52
2.8 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................... 57
3 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................... 59
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 59
3.2 Research paradigms ................................................................................... 59
3.3 Research Approach .................................................................................... 60
3.4 Research design ......................................................................................... 60
3.5 Sampling ..................................................................................................... 61
3.6 Data collection ............................................................................................. 62
3.6.1 Overview of the data collection procedure ............................................ 63
3.6.2 Description of the data collection instruments ...................................... 67
3.7 Data analysis ............................................................................................... 77
3.7.1 Thematic analysis ................................................................................. 77
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
x
3.7.2 Data analysis of learners’ activities during the intervention .................. 79
3.7.3 Data analysis of the pre-intervention test and the post-intervention test
80
3.8 Trustworthiness ........................................................................................... 83
3.8.1 Credibility .............................................................................................. 84
3.8.2 Dependability of the data collection instruments ................................... 85
3.9 Crystallization .............................................................................................. 85
3.10 Ethical considerations .............................................................................. 86
3.11 Chapter Summary .................................................................................... 87
4 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................... 88
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 88
4.2 Results from the pre-intervention test ......................................................... 88
4.2.1 Results obtained for each item in the pre-intervention test ................... 88
4.2.2 Results of the pre-intervention test data per participating school ....... 117
4.2.3 Summary of the pre-intervention test results ...................................... 119
4.3 Results from the post-intervention test ...................................................... 120
4.3.1 Results obtained for each item in the post-intervention test ............... 120
4.3.2 Results of the post-intervention test data per participating school ...... 144
4.3.3 Summary of the post-intervention test results ..................................... 147
4.3.4 Comparison of post-intervention test and pre-intervention test results 147
4.4 Analysis of ratio questions ........................................................................ 152
4.4.1 Learners’ responses to items requiring the use ratios in the pre-
intervention test ............................................................................................... 152
4.4.2 Learners’ responses to items requiring the use of ratios in the post-
intervention test ............................................................................................... 153
4.4.3 Comparison of the pre-intervention test and post-intervention test ratio
questions ......................................................................................................... 154
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
xi
4.5 Results from the POGIL intervention ......................................................... 155
4.5.1 Learner responses to Model 1 ............................................................ 156
4.5.2 Learner responses to Model 2 ............................................................ 160
4.5.3 Learner responses to Model 3 ............................................................ 172
4.5.4 Learner responses to Model 4 ............................................................ 181
4.5.5 Discussion of intervention results ....................................................... 196
4.6 Results from interview of the teachers ...................................................... 200
4.7 Results from the focus group interview of learners ................................... 206
4.8 Results from the observation of POGIL lessons........................................ 210
4.9 Chapter summary ...................................................................................... 215
5 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 217
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 217
5.2 Overview of the study ................................................................................ 217
5.3 Description of the findings ......................................................................... 219
5.3.1 Learners’ engagement and reasoning in the pre-intervention test ...... 219
5.3.2 How the learners engaged and reasoned in the post-intervention test222
5.3.3 How the learners engaged and reasoned during POGIL activities? ... 224
5.3.4 How the POGIL-trained Physical Sciences teachers engaged learners
during POGIL activities ................................................................................... 225
5.3.5 The learners’ perceptions of POGIL as a teaching and learning strategy
226
5.3.6 The teachers’ perceptions of POGIL as a teaching and learning strategy
227
5.4 Summary of the findings ........................................................................... 228
5.5 Concluding remarks .................................................................................. 229
5.5.1 Limitations of the study ....................................................................... 230
5.5.2 Possible contributions of the study ..................................................... 231
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
xii
5.5.3 Recommendations .............................................................................. 233
References ......................................................................................................... 235
Appendices ......................................................................................................... 260
TABLE OF FIGURES
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
xvi
Table of appendices
Appendix 1: Pre- intervention test 260
Appendix 2: Memorandum for pre-intervention test 262
Appendix 3: Post-intervention test 265
Appendix 4: Memorandum for post-intervention test 266
Appendix 5: Marking guidelines. 269
Appendix 6: Sample pre-intervention test script 274
Appendix 7: Sample Post-intervention test script 276
Appendix 8: Letter of informed consent for principals 278
Appendix 9: Letter of informed consent for educators 281
Appendix 10: Letter of informed consent for parent or guardian 284
Appendix 11: Letter of informed assent of the learner 287
Appendix 12: POGIL worksheet 290
Appendix 13: Interview schedule for teachers 299
Appendix 14: Interview schedule for learner 299
Appendix 15: Teacher interview transcription school B 300
Appendix 16: Teacher interview transcription school A 304
Appendix 17: Learners’ focus group interview school A 309
Appendix 18: Learners’ focus group interview school B 314
Appendix 19: Ethics approval letter for data collection 317
Appendix 20: GDE research approval letter for data collection 318
Appendix 21: Lesson observation schedule 320
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
xvii
List of tables
Table 1:1 Grade 12 physical science results in the past 5 years 6
Table 2:1 DoBE cognitive levels as related to Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001) 22
Table 2:2 The weighting of papers according to cognitive levels (DoBE, 2016) 23
Table 2:3 Inquiry-based learning framework adapted from Levy and Petrulis, (2012)
26
Table 2:4 Process skills developed by use of roles in POGIL (Renee, et al., 2019) 35
Table 2:5 Prompts to facilitate development of process skills (Renee, et al., 2019) 37
Table 2:6 Learner activities and cognitive processes in the ICAP framework (Chi,
2011) 57
Table 3:1 Sequence followed for data collection. 66
Table 3:2: Structure of question items in the pre-intervention test 68
Table 3:3 Structure of question items in the post-intervention test 69
Table 3:4 Classification of cognitive levels assessed in DBE tests and examinations.
70
Table 3:5 Codes used in video analysis (Chi, et al., 2018) 79
Table 3:6 Codes used in analysis of pre-intervention test and post-intervention test.
81
Table 3:7 Stages in the Selvaratnam and Frazer (1982) problem-solving model 82
Novice response to question 3bTable 4:1 97
Table 4:2: Pre-intervention test School A question analysis 117
Table 4:3: Pre-intervention test School B question analysis 118
Table 4:4: Pre-intervention test School A and B question analysis 119
Table 4:5 Post-intervention test results School A 145
Table 4:6: Post-intervention test results School B 146
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
xviii
Table 4:7 Post-intervention test results for School A and B 146
Table 4:8 Ratio analysis on the pre-intervention test 153
Table 4:9 Ratio analysis Post-intervention test results 154
Table 4:10 Learners’ first activity, cognitive level, and the image for question 1 156
Table 4:11 Learners’ second activity, cognitive level, and the image for question 1
157
Table 4:12 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 2 158
Table 4:13 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 3a 158
Table 4:14 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 3b 159
Table 4:15: Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 4 160
Table 4:16 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 5 161
Table 4:17 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 6 162
Table 4:18 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 7a 163
Table 4:19 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 7b 164
Table 4:20: Table for model 2 question 8 165
Table 4:21 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 8B 166
Table 4:22 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 8C 167
Table 4:23 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 8D 168
Table 4:24 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 8E 168
Table 4:25 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 9a 170
Table 4:26 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 9b 170
Table 4:27 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 10 171
Table 4:28 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 11a 173
Table 4:29 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 11b 173
Table 4:30 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 12 174
Table 4:31 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 12a 175
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
xix
Table 4:32 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 12b 176
Table 4:33 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 13R 178
Table 4:34 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 13S 179
Table 4:35 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 13T 179
Table 4:36 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 13U 180
Table 4:37 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 14 181
Table 4:38 Learners’ activities and cognitive level on question 15 182
Table 4:39 Learners’ activities and cognitive level on question 15a 183
Table 4:40 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 15b 184
Table 4:41 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 15b 185
Table 4:42 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 15d first
attempt 185
Table 4:43 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 15d second
attempt. 186
Table 4:44 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 16a1 188
Table 4:45 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 16a2 189
Table 4:46 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 16a2
second attempt 191
Table 4:47 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for third extension
question 192
Table 4:48 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for first extension
question 193
Table 4:49 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for extension question
(c). 194
Table 4:50 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for extension question
(d) 195
Table 4:51 Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for extension question
(e) 196
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
xx
Table 4:52 Video analysis of the intervention adapted from the ICAP framework. 197
Table 4:53 Summary of results for video analysis of the intervention 198
Structure of the thesis
The first chapter discusses the background, the statement of the problem, the rationale
and aim of the study and the research questions. The second chapter reviews the
literature relevant to the study. In the third chapter, the research methodology is
outlined while chapter four presents an analysis and discussion of the results. In
conclusion, chapter five discusses the findings and limitations of the study, as well as
areas for further research. The list of references and the appendices then follow for
easy cross-referencing.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
1
1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Contemporary science education is more focused on the learners’ understanding than
mere lesson delivery (Abd-El Khalick, et al., 2004). Current approaches are more
concerned with the mental constructs and learners’ cognition of what they are learning
(Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggss, 2012) as properly structured mental constructs and
cognition are the basis of the learners’ reasoning (McGuire & McGuire, 2015). When
reasoning, learners engage in problem-solving, data processing, critical thinking, and
verbal and written communication (Ozgelen, Yilmaz-Tuzun, & Hanuscin, 2012). These
skills are essential to the learners’ work as they interact with each other while studying
and are believed to develop into life-long habits in their future careers (Dudu &
Vhurumuku, 2012; Hein, 2012). These skills improve learners’ scientific literacy,
prepare them for future careers (McGuire & McGuire, 2015) and help motivate them
to develop into future researchers who may well contribute to the body of knowledge
during their careers.
In South Africa, there is a need for more students to pursue scientific careers.
Therefore, one of the main targets of the Department of Education is to increase the
pass rate of physical sciences (Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report, 2020).
Performance and pass rates may be enhanced by employing teaching strategies that
can improve cognition. Learner-centred approaches such as POGIL have been
observed to enhance such development of learners’ cognition (Simonson, 2019;
McGuire & McGuire, 2015). The current study sought to explore the extent to which a
learner-centred approach such as POGIL elicits learners’ reasoning in grade eleven
stoichiometry. The topic of stoichiometry at grade eleven has been selected as it is
essential in chemistry due to its application in many topics at grade twelve – including
acids and bases, equilibrium, rate of reaction and electrochemistry, to mention but a
few (Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report, 2016; Passmore, Stewart, &
Cartier, 2009; Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Hooper, 2016). Therefore, the current study
emerged on the quest to explore the extent to which learner-centred approaches elicit
learners’ reasoning.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
2
1.2 Background
POGIL is a research-based learner-centred guided-inquiry pedagogical strategy
where learners work in collaborative groups of three, four or six. The learners actively
engage in activities exploring content that results in concept formulation and
understanding (Elmore, 1991; Hein, 2012; Koopman, 2017; Moog & Spencer, 2008).
POGIL elicits critical thinking skills such as analysing, evaluating, synthesizing and
problem-solving skills (identification, planning and executing a strategy). POGIL also
elicits other process skills such as communication, teamwork, management,
information processing and assessment (Simonson, 2019). Past studies have
established that POGIL is an effective teaching approach that results in improved
academic performance and achievement as compared to traditional methods of
teaching (DuBert, et al., 2008; Hanson, 2006; Hein, 2012; Moog & Spencer, 2008;
Nadelson, 2009; Villagonzalo, 2014). However, no research has taken on the task of
qualitatively gauging how POGIL fosters reasoning through critical thinking skills and
how it develops problem-solving skills for the conceptual understanding of
stoichiometry.
My teaching experience and appreciation for inquiry approach led me to discover the
American inquiry method POGIL as one of the methods that develops learners’
understanding (Simonson, 2019). This study focused on how POGIL elicits learners’
reasoning in stoichiometry. POGIL is a type of inquiry learning based on John Dewey’s
philosophy that education begins with the curiosity of the learner (Harvey & Daniels,
2009). The POGIL teaching approach places the learner at the centre of learning
(learner-centred) (Anderson, 2002) and develops a deeper understanding of concepts
through critical thinking and reasoning, thereby developing mental constructs (Abd-El
Khalick, et al., 2004; Ozgelen, Yilmaz-Tuzun, & Hanuscin, 2012). The POGIL method
guides learners through learning cycles embedded in carefully designed worksheets
(Barthlow & Watson, 2011; Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010;
Simonson, 2019). These worksheets elicit learners’ interest and attention to the
information, leading to concept development (Kurumeh, Jimin, & Mohammed, 2012).
The worksheets are designed to progressively build from simple to more complex
concepts so that learners base their understanding on familiar concepts. The learners
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
3
are exposed to learning material with necessary resources and are guided through a
series of activities designed to promote analytical thinking and reasoning.
POGIL is a constructivist model as it acknowledges that learners already have some
knowledge about almost anything they may have encountered in the past, formally or
informally (Villagonzalo, 2014; Vygotsky, 1934/1986). Science learners’ prior
knowledge may be correct or incorrect, or a mixture thereof (Coetzee & Imenda, 2012;
Ozgelen, Yilmaz-Tuzun, & Hanuscin, 2012). Suitable teaching approaches which pay
attention to learners’ cognition may effectively correct the incorrect ideas initially held
by learners (Bybee, 1997; Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010).
As with the general inquiry method, POGIL emphasizes reasoning and understanding
rather than memorization (Hein, 2012; Ozgelen, Yilmaz-Tuzun, & Hanuscin, 2012;
Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010). It also focuses on the generation of
useful and applicable knowledge through investigation (Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, &
Briggss, 2012).
1.3 Research context
South Africa is currently facing challenges with regards to the proficiency of teaching
and learning of science and mathematics. The evidence for the challenges faced by
learners is the poor performance of learners in physical sciences at Grade 12,
particularly in the chemistry paper (Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report,
2016). The DoBE report also indicates that learners primarily struggle with topics
related to stoichiometry. The report from the Southern and Eastern African Consortium
for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ) Grade 6 tests show South Africa ranked
in the lower 50% of the 16 participating countries in numeracy and literacy (Moloi &
Chetty, 2011). The results indicate that most learners in South Africa lack the
necessary mathematical skills to solve multi-step calculations. The results of the Trends
in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for Grades 4 to 9 placed South
Africa among the lowest in mathematics and science achievement of the 64 participating
countries (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Hooper, 2016). The achievement of South African grade
9 learners is among the lowest, with science being lower than mathematics. The TIMSS
results suggest that schools of low socioeconomic level performed worse than schools
from higher socioeconomic levels (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Hooper, 2016). Schools with low
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
4
socioeconomic status are prevalent in the South African context and likely contributes to
the low achievement of learners.
It is without doubt that teachers contribute to the educational achievement of learners
(Arends & Phurutse, 2009; Malcolm, Mavhunga, & Rollnick, 2019). The competency of
the teacher as well as the teaching approach and resources used by the teachers are all
worth considering for successful learning to occur. Teachers should be experts of the
content they teach, as well as the methodology they employ, for effective learning to occur.
Previous studies show that some South African teachers have challenges related to the
content knowledge of their speciality (Vhurumuku & Dudu, 2017). This may be a cause for
concern because effective teaching may be compromised by the teachers’ lack of subject
content expertise.
South African high schools, particularly those of low socioeconomic level, are not
conducive for science teaching due to a lack of material resources and qualified teachers
(Moloi & Chetty, 2011; Mullis, et al, 2016). For this reason, both SACMEQ and TIMSS
recommend in-service training of teachers in science and mathematics content knowledge
and methodology. Under-resourced laboratories and low qualified teachers, or absence
thereof, are a common phenomenon in South African schools of low socioeconomic status
(Stott, 2020).
In the following paragraphs I describe the findings of the previous studies on stoichiometry
in the South African context.
1.4 Stoichiometry in the South African curriculum
While stoichiometry is a major chemistry topic at high school, it is at this stage,
important to note that the South African curriculum places this topic in a subject called
physical sciences which consists of the physics section and the chemistry section. The
DoBE’s diagnostic reports on Grade 12 examinations have for the past few years
indicated the difficulties faced by learners in identifying limiting reactants, calculating
moles, and applying the mole ratio, among other challenges (DoBE Report, 2019).
A study by Malcolm, Mavhunga and Rollnick (2019) identified stoichiometry as a topic
that is difficult for teachers to teach and for high school learners to understand. The
study further indicated the need for professional development in the topic to improve
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
5
the Grade 12 pass rate (Malcolm, Mavhunga, & Rollnick, 2019). A similar study by
Vhurumuku and Dudu (2017) revealed that the learners’ and teachers’ understanding
of the nature of science did not differ significantly. This finding is concerning because
the subject matter knowledge of the teachers needs to be well above that of the
learners if the teachers are to assist learners effectively. That study highlighted the
necessity for teacher training to focus more on pre-service teacher understanding of
subject matter knowledge and teacher pedagogical skills. The study recommends that
the authorities should value the teachers’ pedagogical skills and their pedagogical
content knowledge of the nature of science (Vhurumuku & Dudu, 2017). A similar
study revealed that most teachers use the lecture method regardless of the
expectations of the new CAPS curriculum which is aligned to inquiry (Dudu, 2014;
Ramnarain & Schuster, 2014).
Chemistry, and stoichiometry in particular, was discovered to be most difficult for first-
year university students (Marais & Combrick, 2009). These students were identified to
memorize the formulae or definitions without understanding the concepts. Some
difficulties identified in that study included students failing to balance equations of
reactions, failing to calculate the limiting reactant and the reaction yield. In that study,
the researchers indicated that many conventional lecture methods failed to improve
the pass rate of the first-year students in chemistry. The study assumes that the
students lacked reasoning skills, problem-solving skills to solve stoichiometry
calculations (Marais & Combrick, 2009). These findings concur with previous findings
indicating that first-year tertiary students perform poorly in stoichiometry (Potgieter,
Rogan, & Howie, 2005; Potgieter & Davidowitz, 2010). Their poor grasp of
stoichiometry may be the reason they fail to apply appropriate reasoning to solve
problems.
Statistically speaking, a recent study by Stott (2020) revealed that there were
significantly higher levels of stoichiometry knowledge among teachers serving
‘advantaged’ communities. This was also true for teachers with over three years'
teaching experience and those possessing a B.Sc. degree. The study suggests
content deficiency among teachers serving poor communities (which may represent a
large population in South Africa), less experienced teachers or less qualified teachers
(Stott, 2020). This physical sciences content deficiency contradicts the South African
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
6
education system’s emphasis on teacher competency in knowledge skills, methods,
and procedures relevant to each phase (Molefe & Stears, 2014).
Based on the previous findings, this study sought to improve learners’ reasoning in the
broad chemistry topic of stoichiometry, using POGIL. This research was done to
identify the learners’ competence during problem-solving of stoichiometry calculations.
1.5 Problem statement
The academic achievement of South African Grade 12 physical sciences learners is
below the expectation of the Department of Basic Education. In the past five years, for
instance, less than 18% of matric candidates achieved marks which were 60% and
above in physical sciences (Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report, 2019).
More details are shown in table 1.1 below.
Table 1:1
Grade 12 physical science results in the past 5 years
Year Number wrote Number achieved 60% plus % Achieved at 60% and above
2014 167 997 22 007 13.1%
2015 193 189 24 728 12.8%
2016 192 710 28 714 14.9%
2017 179 561 29 089 16.2%
2018 172 319 30 328 17.6%
Only learners who achieve above 60% in physical sciences stand a chance to meet
the minimum requirements for university entry for medical and engineering programs
(Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report, 2019). This shows that most high
school learners do not make it into university and those who do, hardly qualify to
access engineering and medical programs. Though there has been a gradual increase
in the numbers of learners who achieve above 60%, the numbers are still exceptionally
low compared to the number of candidates enrolled.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
7
The low achievement rate (Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report, 2020) can
be attributed to many factors, including inappropriate teaching methods where
teachers use the lecture method too frequently (Ramnarain & Schuster, 2014). Topics
such as stoichiometry are abstract and difficult (Marais & Combrick, 2009; Potgieter &
Davidowitz, 2010), while schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas may lack
resources (Stott, 2020). In other cases, learners may lack motivation due to a
combination of factors (Yiga, et al., 2019; Masista, 2006). The learners may fail to
understand, or the teachers may have inadequate content knowledge (Vhurumuku &
Dudu, 2017).
For learners to succeed in studying chemistry they require sound reasoning skills, the
ability to visualize abstract ideas and being skilful in problem-solving techniques
(Marais & Combrick, 2009). Stoichiometry looks at chemical calculations related to
limiting reagents, percentage yield, percentage purity, and the number of moles,
atoms, volume, concentration, or mass of substances used or produced during a
chemical reaction (Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report, 2016; Department
of Basic Education [DoBE NCS-CAPS], 2012). When learners are proficient in
stoichiometry, they are most likely to do well in chemistry.
1.6 Rationale and significance of the study
As an experienced high school science teacher, I have noticed that most learners
experience challenges with the chemistry paper as compared to the physics paper.
This is a general observation made by most physical sciences teachers. I also noticed
that my learners did better in recall questions than questions that need higher-order
thinking skills. Similarly, I observed that in multi-step calculations learners faced
challenges such that they did not complete all the steps in the calculation. In some
cases, the learners mixed up the steps and ended up with incorrect answers. Most
learners faced challenges in answering descriptive questions.
After working hard as a teacher, explaining repeatedly, I saw only slight improvements
in my learners, and I was not satisfied. Careful inquiry led me to discover that my
learners simply did not understand the underlying concepts. The learners would pick
a formula and start substitution values without reasoning. As such, many of them
answered questions that were never asked or answered correctly by mere
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
8
coincidence. The chances of unjustified procedure being correct decreased as the
complexity of the questions increased. I, therefore, believe that when learners
understand concepts, they will be able to reasonably apply their understanding to
problem-solving and describing processes. Reasoning in stoichiometry requires that
learners assess the available data to find the unknown. This includes selecting the
appropriate formula to use and doing proper substitution before solving the calculation.
In multi-step calculations, it involves the reidentification of data and the use of a
second, third or even fourth formula and repeating the same process. Often, they need
to use the ratio technique to link up the formulae to proceed from one step to the next.
Such reasoning can only be developed by a carefully structured learning approach.
The problems I have faced with my learners appear to be common among most
learners in high school. Teachers have tried implementing a range of strategies to help
their learners in the best ways they could. Some teachers have tried morning,
afternoon, or weekend classes. Some gave extra homework, and some did extensive
revision towards the examination. All these helped to some extent, but not entirely.
The failure of high school learners to solve stoichiometry problems impacts negatively
on their success in physical sciences (DoBE Report, 2019). This is so because
stoichiometry is a major topic in chemistry constituting a large percentage of the
chemistry paper. Therefore, when learners struggle in stoichiometry, they are likely to
fail the chemistry paper. Learners with weak knowledge of stoichiometry seem to
struggle with related subject modules at university level (Marais & Combrick, 2009;
Malcolm, Mavhunga, & Rollnick, 2019). Some learners who fail stoichiometry usually
fail to achieve in the subject and may fail to pursue programmes of their choices. This
could result in a low number of professionals in science-related courses such as
medicine and engineering.
Previous research has revealed that learner-centred modern teaching approaches
may help to reduce misconceptions and increase understanding (Department of Basic
Education [DoBE NCS-CAPS], 2012). Learner-centred approaches such as POGIL,
encourage learners to have direct observations and develop lasting problem-solving
skills and habits of the mind that will aid their future study, work and life experiences
(Dudu & Vhurumuku, 2012; Hein, 2012; Hanson, 2006; Moog & Spencer, 2008).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
9
These learners may therefore perceive science as easy, understandable, interesting,
and motivating (Avery & Meyer, 2012; Minner, Levy & Century, 2010).
Learners’ understanding and reasoning are mental traits embedded in the learners’
mind and not easily accessible by direct observation. Research on learners’ cognition
has revealed that learners’ hidden ideas can be revealed through verbal or non-verbal
actions when learners write tests or engage with each other during discussions
(Veenman, 2012; Zohar & Dori, 2012). While previous studies have observed that
POGIL and inquiry methods in general result in increased understanding and
achievement of learners, not many have investigated how this teaching approach
makes these achievements possible.
The current research, therefore, investigates this gap to establish how the use of
POGIL during an intervention may influence learners’ reasoning in stoichiometry.
Essentially, this study seeks to provide results on the effectiveness of collaborative
learning on South African learners’ reasoning, which previous research found favoured
by learners (Allers, 2007). Such results might inform the DoBE on whether to invest in
POGIL or other cooperative teaching methods for use in the classroom. That
investment may include training of teachers and the provision of resources.
The results of this study might also be important for the Department of Basic Education
of South Africa, who have noted the low pass rate in physical sciences and
stoichiometry (DoBE Report, 2019). My assumption is that if learners improve their
achievement in stoichiometry, they are likely to pass the subject at high school
because it is such a major part of physical sciences. A potential increase in the pass
rate may lead to increased numbers of professionals in engineering and medicine.
Significance of the current study to me include that I may use POGIL in my own
classes to improve understanding and reasoning of my learners. I may as well
recommend other teachers to make use of POGIL in difficult and abstract topics in
science and mathematics. I may ultimately learn how to develop other POGIL
worksheets for use in science and mathematics at different grades if POGIL
demonstrated to be effective in improving reasoning and understanding of learners.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
10
1.7 Aim and research questions
The study aimed to establish how POGIL influences learners’ reasoning about
stoichiometry. Therefore, a POGIL intervention was introduced to achieve this aim.
The primary research question has been formulated as follows:
How does POGIL influence learners’ reasoning about stoichiometry?
The following secondary research questions have been formulated to answer the
primary research question:
1. How do Grade 11 physical sciences learners reason before exposure to POGIL?
2. How do POGIL-trained physical sciences teachers engage learners during POGIL
activities?
3. How do Grade 11 physical sciences learners engage and reason during
stoichiometric POGIL activities?
4. How do Grade 11 physical sciences learners reason after exposure to POGIL?
5. What are the learners’ perceptions of POGIL as a teaching and learning strategy?
6. What are the teachers’ perceptions of POGIL as a teaching and learning strategy?
1.8 Assumptions
The assumptions underlying the study were:
• That the teachers trained during a three-day workshop were well equipped with the
expertise to teach their learners effectively with the use of POGIL. This assumption
was supported by my visits to some of the POGIL-trained teachers’ classes before
the actual data collection. The two participants in this study were part of those
teachers initially visited to ascertain their use of POGIL and willingness to
participate in the study.
• That the analysis of the learners’ scripts in the pre-intervention test provided
information about their reasoning and problem-solving skills in stoichiometry. The
pre-intervention test provided insight into the learners’ reasoning capacity before
the intervention. The learners were taught the same concepts in Grade 10 the
previous year, so the topic was not new to them.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
11
• That the participating learners were well trained in POGIL and aware of the
different group work roles they should assume during POGIL lessons.
• That the video recording and lesson observations during the POGIL intervention
provided richer insights into how learners reasoned during interactive learning in
groups. It was also assumed that it provided information about how learners argue
based on evidence in support of their ideas and that the answers provided in the
worksheets represented the views of the group and not the individual.
• That as learners engaged during the intervention, they sharpened each other’s
views and collectively achieved better than any one of them would have
individually.
• That any improvement in learners’ reasoning in the post-intervention test results is
attributed to the effects of the intervention.
• That the learners’ post-intervention test scripts demonstrated their mathematical
reasoning and problem-solving skills after the intervention. The comparison of the
post-intervention test and the pre-intervention test results provided information
about how POGIL elicits reasoning in stoichiometry.
• That the intervention would provide an environment for learners to develop
understanding, critical thinking, and reasoning as they interact with each other and
the worksheets. Each learner would be able to express their ideas before the group
and justify them through reasoning.
• That the interviews with the teachers and learners conveyed their true perceptions
about the use of POGIL as a teaching approach.
1.9 The scope of the study
This case study was undertaken in two South African schools, and as such the results
cannot be generalized. It can, however, provide insight into how the use of POGIL
influences teachers’ and learners’ reasoning and thinking in stoichiometry. Its scope
is limited to the manifestations of learners’ mathematical and conceptual reasoning as
they solve stoichiometric problems. The learners’ mathematical reasoning was initially
observed in written form by their responses in the pre-intervention test and lastly in the
post-intervention test. The results from pre-intervention tests at the two schools were
limited to the topic of stoichiometry, which the learners had previously done in Grade
10. As such, the learners may have forgotten what they were taught the year before.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
12
The learners’ written work in the pre- and post-intervention tests revealed their
reasoning skills and approach to answering stoichiometry calculations based on
available data using provided formulae. When solving multi-step calculations, the tests
represented how learners made individual decisions as to the steps required during
the problem-solving process. Since the learners were taught the topic during the
previous year, they may have forgotten how to follow the multi-step problem-solving
procedures. This may have negatively impacted the learners’ responses to the high-
level questions in the pre-intervention test.
During the intervention, the learners’ reasoning and conceptual understanding were
inferred from their oral discussions and from their collectively compiled written scripts
of worksheets. Though the group responses were assumed to be a representation of
the ideas of all members in the group, it is possible that some learners may not have
understood some concepts during their discussions. That lack of understanding may
have negatively impacted their responses in the post-intervention test. The
comparison of their reasoning in the pre- and post-intervention test, as well as their
arguments based on justifications during the intervention, revealed the effectiveness
of POGIL as a way of teaching. This may have been a limitation because some
learners may not seriously consider the opinions of other learners during group
discussions and merely take them as opinions. Such learners may be waiting for the
teacher’s view on each question, which is rare in a POGIL class.
1.10 Researcher’s personal perspective
The experience of the researcher plays a leading role in the ethical and personal
issues in the qualitative research process. As a researcher, I declare my background
to reveal possible biases related to my personality which may have shaped or affected
my data interpretations in the current research (Creswell, 2014). I therefore describe
my position in terms of race, gender, class, beliefs, and other dimensions which are
influential in one way or another, in my research process.
I am a black male living in Pretoria and working in Soshanguve, a black township in
South Africa. I was born in a rural village in Zimbabwe in 1971 in the middle of a
guerrilla war. I lost my mother at the age of 3 years during an attack at our home that
also left my father, a teacher at a local primary school, injured and crippled. I attended
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
13
numerous primary schools and at some point, did not go to school for almost a year,
as all schools were closed due to the war. At the time of independence in 1980, I
attended school with former freedom fighters and war collaborators. That same year,
I lost my father, the only breadwinner I had. I lived a miserable life that nearly wiped
out my natural intelligence. My grandfather came to stay with me when I was in the
fourth grade, as did my younger brother until he passed on in 1986. During those years
I was quickly trained to be the cook for the three of us.
In 1985, I was taken into high school by a senior cousin to start Form 1 (Grade 8) at a
boarding school. This was a strategy by my grandfather to separate me from my
brother as we had made several failed attempts to run away from home to seek
employment in town. The boarding school was a prison for me, as I lacked basic items
like soap although my fees were fully paid and sometimes paid in advance. After
completing Form 6 in 1990, I got a government scholarship to train as a teacher in
Cuba. I took up the offer and did well in my studies during those five years. I learned
chemistry, physics, mathematics, methodology, pedagogy, philosophy, and
psychology. The final year was dedicated to full-time teaching practice and
dissertation. I came among the top learners in my class of 1996.
When I returned to Zimbabwe in 1996, I taught at three rural high schools and a fourth
school located in town. Those years were again marred by poverty due to Zimbabwe’s
economic decline. I furthered my education by acquiring a teachers’ diploma and
though I wanted to continue studying, the education system was overpopulated and
there were only two universities offering master’s degrees in Zimbabwe. Due to the
ongoing economic decline, I got employment in South Africa in 2007 where I have
been working ever since. I did my honours bachelor’s degree in science education in
2012 and my master’s in science education from 2013 to 2015. In my masters, I
graduated with a score close to a distinction and earned an award in the Golden Key
group of academics. In 2017 I started a doctorate degree in science education for
which I am submitting this thesis.
Having lived as an orphan and being exposed to strife from a young age made me
realise that unless I work for something, I will get nothing. I worked hard to get to where
I am today, and I am extremely grateful for reaching the completion of my doctorate. I
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
14
always preferred to work alone except when I worked with my late wife. In time, I came
to cherish working in teams. I know that there is power in teamwork and have applied
group work in my classes, although I continue to enjoy working alone. For that reason,
I am not frustrated if I do not get praise, a gift or acknowledgement for anything I may
have achieved.
I have been a teacher since 1996, a total of 25 years of teaching experience. I followed
the lecture method until I discovered that learner-centred teaching approaches are
less stressing for the teacher and provide the best recipe for the learners. For my
masters’ degree, I did a dissertation on inquiry-based science education where I
prepared lesson plans used by experts to teach during the intervention. Further
reading led me to discover POGIL, which uses ready-made worksheets that serve as
teaching tools during lessons. I explored that direction with the help of my supervisor
who brought in a POGIL expert to train high school teachers, including myself, on
teaching using POGIL.
I attended the three-day workshop with 25 high school teachers, the one-day
workshop with about 20 university lecturers, and a class demonstration with about 14
pre-service students at the University of Pretoria. I followed up with some of the trained
high school teachers and assisted and encouraged them to continue using POGIL in
their classes where possible. The two teachers who participated in the current study
are among those I previously trained and assisted. To gain even further insight into
POGIL, part of this study included travelling to the USA for two weeks in 2019. That
journey opened my eyes to the POGIL way of thinking and helped me in my data
analysis. In the two 5-day workshops I attended, I was the only one from Africa and
the only black attendee. I was happy that the direction of my study was a window not
only on my African ethnicity but on Africa and African approaches to teaching. My wish
as a teacher has always been to guide other teachers in the modern ways of teaching,
although I know that certain parameters may hinder me in achieving that. My second
choice of action would be to do research or to be an advisor to the education
department on teaching methods and the science syllabus. But as the saying goes, “a
noble man may have good ideas but who will listen to him?”
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
15
My worldview perspective is constructivist, a notion I have pursued in my masters’
degree as well as this doctorate. I believe that when learning happens in the mind of
the learner, it is more profound and grounded than when the learner is told concepts.
I believe in learner-centred approaches where learners construct their own ideas.
Such ideas are then polished by the teacher who acts as a facilitator of the learning
process. I believe active learning results in deep understanding and I have learned
that interactive learning results in deeper understanding. I cherish the qualitative study
of how much knowledge a learner has acquired. I am inclined to employ evidence-
based research methods and arguments which support ideas through tests,
interviews, or observations.
1.11 Outline of thesis
My thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 is the overview of the study which entails
the introduction, background of the study, research context, stoichiometry in South
Africa, the research problem statement, the rationale, the aim, and research questions
of the study. This is followed by the assumptions, scope of the study, and the
researcher positionality. Chapter 1 concludes with the chapter outline.
Chapter 2 discusses the literature on stoichiometry and previously identified learner
difficulties in stoichiometric calculations. It includes the description of the POGIL
teaching approach as a type of learner-centred collaborative learning method, and
related past studies and findings. Chapter 2 discusses previous study findings on
stoichiometry, Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain, active learning, inquiry learning
and POGIL as a type of learner-centred collaborative learning used in the current
study. Thereafter, previously identified advantages and disadvantages of using the
POGIL as well as information- and cognitive processing, reasoning, and metacognition
are discussed. It concludes with the conceptual and the chapter summary.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology I chose for the study. This includes the
philosophical stance, approach, design, sampling, instruments, data collection, data
analysis and methodological norms. The description of the data collection procedures
entailed the description of the test instruments and the POGIL intervention as well as
the methodology that underpinned the POGIL intervention for data collection (the
ICAP). Chapter 4 is the data analysis of all data obtained from tests, intervention, and
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
16
interviews. Chapter 5 is the conclusion of the study which entails the description of the
answers to the research questions.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
17
2 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The chapter commences with a discussion of the literature related to the teaching and
learning of stoichiometry. This is followed by a description of Bloom’s taxonomy of
cognitive domain on which the reasoning that is investigated in this study is analysed.
Afterwards, a thorough description of active learning as a type of learner-centred
approach is described, connecting it to inquiry learning, POGIL and a description of
the process skills. Information processing, cognitive processing and reasoning are
discussed thereafter. Lastly, the description of metacognition and the conceptual
framework underpinning the study is described.
2.2 Stoichiometry
Stoichiometry is a wide-ranging topic in physical sciences. It covers the calculations
of the relative molecular mass, the number of moles, the unknown mass, the number
of atoms, the number of electrons, the concentration of solutions, limiting reactant, the
volume of solutions, the percentage of mass of an element in a compound or mixture
among others (Department of Basic Education [DoBE NCS-CAPS], 2012).
In the study by Sunday, Ibemenji, & Alamina (2019), learners who were taught
stoichiometry using problem-solving techniques performed better than those taught
using the lecture method. Problem-solving techniques had more efficacy and
enhanced learners’ understanding, rather than the traditional method used in
stoichiometry (Sunday, Ibemenji, & Alamina, 2019). The use of multiple levels of
representations which entailed macroscopic, sub-microscopic and symbolic, also
improved learners’ achievement in stoichiometry (Mocerino, Chandrasegaran, &
Treagust, 2009; Pikoli, 2020). The use of such multiple levels of representations is the
basis of inquiry learning, where learners are guided towards developing an
understanding of concepts (Colburn, 2009).
The studies by Kimberlin and Yezierski (2016) showed that inquiry-based learning in
stoichiometry led to statistically significant improvement in conceptual understanding
(Kimberlin & Yezierski, 2016). Hadar and Al Naqabi (2008) observed that learners’
overall use of metacognitive strategies (awareness of cognition, monitoring, planning,
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
18
self-checking, self-appraisal, and engagement) predicts the learners’ understanding
of stoichiometry. The study revealed that learners used planning more than any other
metacognitive strategy and it had a direct impact on the understanding of stoichiometry
(Hadar & Al Naqabi, 2008). The metacognitive strategies seem to have a direct
relationship to learners’ reasoning since they cannot plan or monitor themselves
without reasoning. Another study by Schmidt (1990) revealed that many learners do
not understand stoichiometry. The learners responded to questions while confusing
the number of moles and reacting mass or reacting mass and molar mass (Schmidt,
1990). The confusing of quantities during calculations imply that such learners lacked
understanding and were not using reasoning to solve the questions.
A study by Adigwe (2013) analysed the relationship between mathematical skills and
achievement and discovered that learners taught mathematical skills achieved better
in chemical stoichiometry. The same study revealed that male learners had a greater
improvement in chemical knowledge and mathematical skills than female learners
(Adigwe, 2013). In a study by Chandrasegaran et al. (2009), it was revealed that high-
achieving learners claimed to use memorized formulae to deduce the limiting reactant
by comparing mole ratios. The average learners deduced from the balanced chemical
equation and generally, learners displayed limited confidence in calculating the limiting
reactant (Chandrasegaran, et al., 2009). This suggests that memorizing, which is a
low-order cognitive skill, yielded effective achievement in that study. Literature
consulted in this section suggests that the active-learning methods were effective in
improving learners’ understanding of stoichiometry.
In the following paragraphs, I describe Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domains. This
relates to my study on the cognitive levels and the reasoning which is embedded with
cognition. Bloom’s taxonomy is important for this study because the learners’ tests
were marked and classified based on the level of cognition revealed in their responses.
More details about the cognitive levels are discussed in the following paragraphs of
chapters 2 and 3 of this study.
2.3 Bloom’s Taxonomy
The cognitive development of learners during POGIL activities is underpinned by the
revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain (Anderson & Krathwohl,
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
19
2001; Bloom, 1956). Bloom’s revised taxonomy of cognitive development is an active
process-oriented hierarchy of learning levels (McGuire & McGuire, 2015; Bloom,
1956). According to this taxonomy, the lowest stage is remembering, where a learner
is expected to provide basic knowledge from memory. The learner at this stage is
expected to define, state, name, and record knowledge from simple recall. This is the
most basic stage. Any learner is expected to remember what they were told or what
they previously studied. There is no reasoning expected at this stage, only the recall
of previously learned knowledge (McGuire & McGuire, 2015). The learner is expected
to state that information in either, the same words, or in their own words, but accurately
keeping the meaning of the concept.
The second stage is understanding. In this stage, the learner now discusses,
interprets, and describes their understanding of what they know (McGuire & McGuire,
2015; Bloom, 1956). The learner now explains in their own words and elaborates on
their knowledge. The learner is not merely reproducing the remembered knowledge
but demonstrates understanding of the knowledge. That understanding is shown by
the learner being able to interpret content based on prior knowledge. The learner can
describe a phenomenon by relating it to the previously learned concepts. When the
learner interprets, discusses, or describes concepts they will be reasoning in the way
they understand the concept. They will be applying all logical reasoning according to
their own view (Bloom, 1956; McGuire & McGuire, 2015).
The third stage is application. Here, the learner applies their understanding in new
situations and demonstrates understanding by interpreting, calculating, and
developing concepts in ways they understand best (Bloom, 1956; McGuire & McGuire,
2015). The learner relates the links between concepts and applies knowledge in new
situations. A lot more reasoning is involved as the learner applies their understanding
to new situations and begins making connections between the concept they
understand and its relation to the new situation at hand. They, therefore, apply their
previous understanding to explain, calculate and to develop concepts in new
situations.
In the fourth stage, referred to as the analysing stage, the learner breaks down the
concept into smaller parts and reorganizes them in a manner they most clearly
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
20
understand (Bloom, 1956; McGuire & McGuire, 2015). The learner differentiates,
scrutinizes, inspects, dissects, and develops deductions. The learner can
appropriately split the concept into its constituent parts. The learner can see the
connections between the parts of the concepts and can appropriately relate them to
each other. In calculation problems, analysing is necessary when the learner is
performing multi-step calculations. In such situations, the learner must know the
connections between the many parts of a concept in question. The learner applies
reasoning to analyse concepts.
In the evaluating stage, the learner uses the identified parts of a concept to evaluate,
to critique and produce recommendations and reports. The learner uses their profound
understanding of the multi-stage connecting parts of a concept to evaluate the
outcomes of certain calculations and may evaluate two or more responses by
comparing them. The learner may apply reasoning to evaluate their answers or other
learners’ answers or a set of given responses to the same question (Bloom, 1956;
McGuire & McGuire, 2015).
The highest stage of cognition is the creating stage. A learner at this stage can now
put together all the parts of a concept or process and create a new form of design. At
this stage, new knowledge, principles, methods, and designs are developed. The
learner can come up with new approaches to solving problems, and not necessarily
depend on methods that are already known (Bloom, 1956; McGuire & McGuire, 2015).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
21
Figure 2:1 Revised Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain (McGuire & McGuire, 2015)
The higher stages of cognition, which include understanding, applying, analysing,
evaluating, and creating, are components of reasoning. These stages constitute the
reasoning of learners as they demonstrate their understanding by applying it in
different situations and analysing it and evaluating the processes. Finally, the learners
may create their own models and/or designs.
For a high school learner to get As or Bs, they need to be strong on the lower levels
of cognition, which are, remembering, understanding, and applying. University-level
students, however, may only get such grades if they master higher levels of cognition
from analysing and upwards (McGuire & McGuire, 2015; Bloom, 1956; Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001). Such levels are part of the high levels of critical thinking which is an
essential type of reasoning. For that reason, learners need to think according to the
expected outcomes for that level.
The South African syllabus has an assessment table used to analyse the validity of
examinations and tests, according to the requirements of the examinations board
(Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report, 2016; Department of Basic Education
[DoBE] Report, 2020). The guidelines provided are normally known as levels or
cognitive levels. These were drawn from Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
22
Evidently, the way the levels were made is skewed negatively, as 50% of the marks
are allocated to levels 1 and 2 of Bloom’s taxonomy. According to the Department of
Basic Education, levels I and II correspond to cognitive levels 1 and 2 respectively, on
Bloom’s taxonomy. Level III is a combination of cognitive levels 3 and 4 on Bloom’s
taxonomy while level IV is a combination of cognitive levels 5 and 6 on Bloom’s
taxonomy (McGuire & McGuire, 2015; Bloom, 1956; Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Table 2.1 below summarizes the expected outcomes per level and the corresponding
taxonomy level according to Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domains.
Table 2:1
DoBE cognitive levels as related to Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Level Expected outcome Related Bloom’s taxonomy
I Learner makes simple and obvious connections. Recalls and remembers facts. Can tabulate, list, name, match.
Remembering
II Learner has first level understanding of concepts, recalls, and describes meaning, can interpret, summarize, predict, and write in order.
Understanding
III Learner has deeper understanding of all the constituent parts, their relationship and hidden meaning, and can use related knowledge skills to answer questions with reasoning. Use the knowledge in new situations.
Applying Analysing
IV Learner makes connections between concepts, generalizes, and transfers principles, works with relationships of abstract ideas, compares, and makes judgements and arguments based on reasoning.
Evaluating Creating
The examinations and tests are prepared using the weighting prescribed by the
examination board. Levels 1 and 2, remembering and understanding, constitute
between 50% and 55% of the marks in the examination. As such, a learner who can
remember and understand should already be able to pass. The other 50% of the marks
are for the higher order cognitive skills, where critical thinking and problem-solving
skills are indispensable because they require evidence-based reasoning (McGuire &
McGuire, 2015; Bloom, 1956; Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Such high order thinking
skills are needed dearly at tertiary level and ought to be developed at high school level
for the future success of the learner. These skills need to be developed gradually
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
23
through mini-research, reports and assignment that require analysis, create
application, and evaluate the text or concepts provided. Table 2.2 shows the
recommended percentage of marks allocation per cognitive level in the physical
sciences papers.
Table 2:2
The weighting of papers according to cognitive levels (DoBE, 2016)
Paper Weighing of questions across cognitive level
Level I Level II Level III Level IV
Paper 1 (Physics section)
15% 35% 40% 10%
Paper 2 (Chemistry section)
15% 40% 35% 10%
In section 2.3, I described active learning methods as learner-centred approaches. I
identified POGIL as a type of active learner-centred approach which enables the
development of the higher levels of cognition required by the DBE, relating it to the
conceptual framework which shall be described in section 2.5.
2.4 Active Learning
Active learning is the process of involving learners in activities while they are thinking
about what they are doing (Bonwell & Eison, 1991); or an instructional method that
engages learners through a learning process where they do meaningful activities that
require them to think critically (Michael, 2006; Prince, 2004). Pestalozzi (2012) studied
active learning, hands-on experimentation, and higher order thinking skills while
adopting the viewpoint of teacher guidance (Pestalozzi, 2012). Active learning
engages learners in a series of activities through a learning process that engages in
discussions and activities as opposed to passively listening to an expert (Freeman, et
al., 2014). In active learning, learners work in pairs or groups discussing and giving
reasons for their responses to the questions (Chi & Wylie, 2014). This reflection
enhances metacognitive strategies which have been shown to improve learning (Frey
& Shadle, 2019; Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013; Donker, De Boer, Kostons, van
Ewijk, & van der Werf, 2014). Several techniques have been developed to support
active learning, including the pause method (Rowe, 1986), learners doing note
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
24
comparisons and short activities in groups, such as think-pair-share (Lyman, 1981),
concept tests (Crouche & Mazur, 2001; Mazur, 1997), and using personal response
systems like cell phones (Cadwell, 2007; Gauci, Dantas, Williams, & Kemm, 2009).
During active learning, part of the time is spent by learners working in groups such as
inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, case study, and team-based learning
(Elberlein, et al., 2008; Pedaste, et al., 2015; Sweet & Michaelsen, 2012).
When active learning is used, it would change the teaching method currently used by
most teachers and hence it is imperative to know the efficacy of active teaching
methods to justify the proposal to implement it (Frey & Shadle, 2019). Active learning
is regarded as good practice because it has been shown to increase learning
(Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Such methods have been shown to increase critical
thinking skills by encouraging verbalization and discussions (Tsui, 2002; Chickering &
Gamson, 1987). A study performed in history and political science revealed that
learners engaged in collaborative exercises performed better than those exposed to
teacher-centred methods (McCarthy & Anderson, 2000). Learners have also displayed
learning advantages in active learning in science, mathematics, and technology
(Freeman, et al., 2014; Vickrey, Rosploch, Rahmanian, Pilarz, & Stains, 2015).
Active learning methods such as the use of short activities; activities that engage
learners in the learning process; the use of collaborative and cooperative learning; and
the use of problem-based learning; have been found to be effective (Prince, 2004). All
five forms of active learning support the notion that active learning results in improved
learning with cooperative and collaborative learning being the best (Elberlein, et al.,
2008; Michael, 2006; Prince, 2004). It was also found to increase learner exam
performance in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology as compared to
the traditional lecture method (Freeman, et al., 2014). Further studies have revealed
that active learning increases attention and the retention of the learned concepts
(Bennett, 2010; Chi & Wylie, 2014). It seems that active learning is an approach
worthwhile exploring and using in modern classrooms. The outcomes of teaching may
be increased, and more learners may be enrolled in science-related programmes at
universities as a result.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
25
Successful implementation of active learning requires careful training of facilitators on
how learners learn, how the material must be structured, how to facilitate learning to
effectively support the learners (Andrews, Leonard, Colgrove, & Kalinowski, 2011).
Modifications of the active learning strategies without proper knowledge of the purpose
of the original evidence-based practice may render the approach less effective
(Andrews & Lemons, 2015).
2.5 Inquiry-based Learning
Inquiry-based learning is a collection of pedagogical practices of learning that are
stimulated by a driving question (Lee, 2012). This particular type of active learning has
been found to be effective in supporting learning (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn,
2007; Prince & Felder, 2006). Inquiry as a pedagogical principle is an old philosophical
concept that can be traced back to Plato. The study by DeBoer (1991) describes the
idea of inquiry and its implication to learning. This approach addresses the question
by involving learners in the construction of knowledge and understanding (Bell,
Urhahne, Schanze, & Ploetzner, 2009; Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010). Learners will,
therefore, be engaged in doing things and thinking about what they are doing (Frey &
Shadle, 2019).
The inquiry-based teaching and learning approach is an inductive method like case-
based learning or problem-based learning where learners use models, data, or a
problem through which the needed information is provided (Prince & Felder, 2006).
The driving question provides the context for learning. The inductive methods help
learners to make use of data, models, text, or pictures provided to make specific
observations and discerning patterns, leading to general conclusions (Frey & Shadle,
2019). Based on the role of the teacher and the learner, inquiry-based learning can be
classified as open inquiry, guided inquiry, or structured inquiry. Open inquiry is where
the learner formulates both a question and the procedure for solving it (Martin-Hansen,
2002; Staver & Bay, 1987). The conclusions drawn by the learners will be based on
data gathered from their own procedure. On the other hand, guided inquiry provides
the learners with a teacher-generated problem where the learner designs the
procedure to solve it and provides general conclusions (Martin-Hansen, 2002; Staver
& Bay, 1987). Structured inquiry provides the learners with both teacher-generated
problems and the procedures that can be used to solve them. The teacher provides
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
26
the focus and guiding questions the learners must answer, thereby uncovering the
general ideas and concepts.
Previous research by Levy and Petrulis (2012) distinguished between approaches that
facilitate learner exploration of their existing knowledge base and those that invite
learners to build new knowledge (Levy & Petrulis, 2012). So, inquiry was classified as
either for building new knowledge (inquiry for knowledge building) or to explore what
is known (inquiry for learning). Four inquiry models that emerged in that study are
Producing, Identifying, Authoring, and Pursuing (Levy & Petrulis, 2012). More details
about these inquiry models are explained in table 2.3.
Table 2:3
Inquiry-based learning framework adapted from Levy and Petrulis, (2012)
Driving question/problem framed by Teacher Learner
Inquiry for building new knowledge
Producing – the learners answer new questions formulated by the teacher
Authoring – learners answer their own new questions.
Question How can I answer this open question?
Question – How can I answer my own question?
Inquiry for learning- exploring existing knowledge base
Identifying – Teacher formulates and asks questions. The learners explore the knowledge base by answering questions formulated by the teacher
Pursuing – the learners explore the knowledge base by answering their own questions.
Question What is the existing answer to this question?
Question What is the existing answer to my question?
In Identifying Inquiry, learners explore the knowledge by responding to the guiding
questions, problems, scenarios, or models formulated by the teacher. In Producing
Inquiry, learners solve new problems formulated by the teacher so that they find the
unknown answers. In Pursuing Inquiry, the learners explore the knowledge base by
analysing problems, scenarios, or models they have formulated themselves with the
goal to find what is already known. During Authoring Inquiry, learners formulate their
own driving questions or problems with the aim that their findings will contribute to the
knowledge base (Levy & Petrulis, 2012).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
27
Research by Tornee, et al. (2019) shows that high school learners who were taught
using guided inquiry improved their chemistry knowledge, science process skills, and
scientific attitude. They also improved problem-solving competency, unlike learners
who were taught using traditional methods (Tornee, Bunterm, Lee, & Muchimapura,
2019). This suggests that guided inquiry may be effective in improving achievement
and problem-solving skills. A similar study by Wilujeng and Hastuti (2020) showed that
technology embedded scientific inquiry on stoichiometry improved the problem-solving
skills and curiosity of high school learners (Wilujeng & Hastuti, 2020).
Literature shows that inquiry learning has been extensively practiced and researched.
Countries all over the world including the United States, Europe, Asia, Australia, and
Africa have practiced one form of inquiry or another (Areepattamannil, 2012; Avery &
Meyer, 2012; Cakici & Yavuz, 2012; Marx, et al., 2004). Some research has been done
in South Africa on the Grades 10 and 11 as well as college levels (Dudu & Vhurumuku,
2012). In most cases, inquiry has been observed to yield better results, better
understanding and better motivation towards the learning of science (Harvey &
Daniels, 2009; Oche, 2012). Inquiry-based education has been found to increase
Grade 4 learners’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter (Mamombe,
Mathabathe, & Gaigher, 2020). Many approaches are effective in promoting active
learning but some lack the inquiry component where learners use provided information
to construct meaning. In the next section, I describe POGIL as a type of inquiry on
which the current study is based.
2.6 POGIL
POGIL is a type of inquiry learning based on John Dewey’s philosophy that education
begins with the curiosity of the learner (Harvey & Daniels, 2009). This constructivist
teaching approach places the learner at the centre of learning (learner-centred) and
encourages learners to arrive at a deeper understanding of concepts by themselves,
through critical thinking and reasoning, thereby developing mental constructs (Abd-El
Khalick, et al., 2004; Ozgelen, Yilmaz-Tuzun, & Hanuscin, 2012). POGIL is a guided
inquiry learning method that guides learners through learning cycles embedded in
carefully designed worksheets (Barthlow & Watson, 2011; Process Oriented Guided
Inquiry Learning, 2010; Simonson, 2019). According to Simonson (2019), the
characteristics that define POGIL are working in collaborative groups of three or four
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
28
students, the use of guided-inquiry activities where learners work in the presence of a
POGIL facilitator, and a learner-centred method of instruction. The carefully designed
worksheets elicit learners’ interest and attention to the information, leading to concept
development.
POGIL is also defined as an active learning method, carefully designed for getting
learners to consciously do activities while thinking about their actions (Bonwell &
Eison, 1991); or an instructional method that engages learners through learning cycles
as they do meaningful activities (Prince, 2004; Michael, 2006). POGIL is a guided
inquiry method consisting of the process oriented (PO) and the guided inquiry learning
(GIL) components. Both components will be explained.
POGIL is a learner-centred teaching approach in which learners work in organized
groups answering carefully prepared worksheets aimed at developing specific
concepts in the minds of the learners (Moog & Spencer, 2008). During POGIL
activities, learners work through the four stages of active learning (passive, active,
constructive, and interactive) constructing their own understanding through active
interaction. During discussions, learners justify their ideas to the group with reasons
so that their ideas make sense to the group. POGIL is carefully designed to improve
content mastery and hence improve grades (Farrell, Moog, & Spencer, 1999). It also
helps to develop life skills; the process skills which are important for learners. These
life skills are teamwork, effective communication, problem solving, critical thinking and
information processing (Simonson, 2019). Currently, POGIL is mainly used is science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics and in other disciplines.
Because the teacher organises activities around a specific problem that must be
solved through a series of steps, POGIL is defined as a form of guided inquiry
(Kurumeh, Jimin, & Mohammed, 2012; Staver & Bay, 1987). Its activities are designed
to guide the thinking of learners during the lesson, while the implementation of POGIL
requires active participation of learners as they actively construct ideas (Bodner, 1986;
Driver, Osoko, Leach, Scott, & Mortimer, 1994). It is imperative for the POGIL activities
to be embedded with the guiding component in them so that implementation will be
easy (Frey & Shadle, 2019).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
29
POGIL is most aligned to the Identifying Inquiry of Levy and Petrulis (2012) because
the teacher selects the concepts and focuses in helping the learners uncover ideas
that are already known. Its design also introduces inquiry in which pre-existing
disciplinary content is already known and learners are supposed to master and build
their own understanding (Frey & Shadle, 2019). The teacher selects guiding questions
to support inductive reasoning using the learning cycle. POGIL also has the advantage
of being adaptable and can be used in any classroom setting and to cover specific
content of a course (Frey & Shadle, 2019). These activities replace all the content that
a normal lecture lesson or a laboratory exercise might have covered.
POGIL develops special inquiry skills such as communication, presentation,
teamwork, critical thinking, problem solving and reasoning and enables learners to get
a deeper understanding of the concepts (Hein, 2012; Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, &
Briggss, 2012; Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010). These skills improve
learners’ scientific literacy, prepare them for future careers (McGuire & McGuire, 2015)
and may also motivate learners to develop into future researchers who may possibly
contribute to the body of knowledge in their future careers.
POGIL has been successfully used at primary, high school and up to university level
with all the learners demonstrating improved understanding and achievement in
science, engineering and mathematics (Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning,
2010; Simonson, 2019). POGIL captures the curiosity of young learners by starting
from the known concepts and working toward the unknown concepts, from the easy
to the difficult concepts, and from exploration to application. The learners become
motivated to learn science and develop understanding because they perceive science
concepts to be within their cognitive reach (Vygotsky, 1934/1986).
During POGIL, learners most typically work in groups of 3, 4 or 6, but they can also
work in pairs if the learners are still learning the process or if they are slow learners
(Simonson, 2019). The activities are carefully structured to enable cooperation in
small, self-managed teams that help develop process skills. The work is also
scaffolded through activities and investigations that help them construct their own
knowledge. The activities have specific roles, steps, and targets that help develop
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
30
responsibility and metacognition on the part of the learner (Simonson, 2019). The role
of the instructor is to facilitate consistency in the development of concepts
Another recent study revealed that learners’ performance was improved by using
POGIL rather than lecture methods (Bodner & Elmas, 2020). Some recent research
revealed that POGIL and modified POGIL failed to build argumentation skills in buffer
solutions but improved by incorporating Polya’s problem-solving model (Laily,
Prastika, Marfu’ah, & Suharti, 2020; Oktaviani, Prastika, Fajaroh, & Suharti, 2020).
This suggests that even though the current study focused on how POGIL elicits
learners’ reasoning about stoichiometry, previous studies show contradicting effects
of POGIL with relations to problem-solving and performance.
During POGIL activities, learners are assigned roles in their teams. Activities are
designed as the first introduction of a topic or for specific content which the learners
are not expected to have done previously. The groups are expected to complete all
the questions during the lesson (Simonson, 2019; Moog & Spencer, 2008) although
there may be additional problems to solve outside of teaching time.
During the activities, learners gradually develop the concepts by themselves instead
of having information transmitted to them as with the lecture method. The activities
promote learners to develop process skills within and outside of the content area.
While the traditional methods provide definitions, laws, and rules, POGIL provides data
in the form of photos, graphs, text, and tables which the learners use to develop an
understanding of the concepts (Simonson, 2019). The process leads to the powerful
learning ‘aha moment’.
2.6.1 The Learning Cycle
The learning cycle (LC) is a strategy employed by POGIL in the delivery of classroom
and laboratory activities. It is based on Piaget’s ideas of learning. The basic model for
cycle learning was proposed originally by Karplus and Their (1967) as a basic model
for teaching elementary science.
In the study by Karplus and Their (1967), a teaching unit was made up of several class
sessions where learners were engaged in exploratory activities. The learners analysed
both new and familiar materials to deepen their understanding of previously formed
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
31
concepts. The instructor monitored comprehension, skills, and attitudes as the
learners were working. After enough time was given for exploration, the learners were
given the name of the concept they were investigating. This type of lesson was called
the invention lesson. After concept invention, the learners were encouraged to apply
the concept in new experiments and experiences. These were called the discovery
lessons. Much of the time in elementary school was spent on discovery lessons. The
learning cycle by Karplus and Their (1967) was later studied by (Abraham & Renner,
1986) using six sequences that consisted of one normal and five altered. The study
concluded that the normal learning cycle order (exploration, invention, and discovery)
was for developing content knowledge. Lawson (1988) worked with the ideas of
Karplus and Their (1967) and adapted invention as introductory phase and discovery
as concept application. Figure 2.2 shows a diagram of the learning cycle model
adapted from Lawson, (1988) which is used in POGIL.
Figure 2:2
The learning cycle model (adapted from Lawson, 1988)
The learning cycle provides the structure for POGIL activities. As such, POGIL
activities are generally referred to as learning cycle activities. The Guided Inquiry
Learning (GIL) portion of POGIL is usually completed in one class period. During
exploration, the learners examine a model which can be data, text, a figure, or suitable
learning tools. The exploration phase is inductive and takes advantage of the need by
humans to identify patterns in a phenomenon. During exploration, learners examine
data, a figure, or text which guides them through a series of observations and
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
32
discoveries that aim to capture the prior knowledge of the learners and introduce new
knowledge to them. This helps learners to notice the relationship between the prior
and new knowledge and identify the meaningful knowledge to assimilate. The activity,
which is known as a model, is designed with carefully structured questions that guide
learners using a blend of simple and complex questions working together to develop
conceptual understanding. The discussions engaged in by the learners lead them to
recognize patterns and relationships on the provided knowledge, linking them to their
prior knowledge. The questions guide learners until they invent the concept by
themselves. After concept invention, the facilitator of the POGIL activity will then
provide the scientifically acceptable name of the concept to the learners.
The previous paragraphs were a description of the components of the guided inquiry
learning component of POGIL. In the following paragraphs, I describe the oriented
process as a component of POGIL. The description of the PO (process oriented)
component of POGIL completes the description of POGIL.
2.6.2 Process Oriented Education
Process education envisages the enhancement of learning by utilizing strong
assessment skills for increased future performance (Pacific Crest, 2013). Learners are
expected to reflect on what they learned as to what worked well and what did not work
well, what they have learned, and what they need to learn. This reflection comes from
both assessment and self-assessment of the learners which directs them to develop
transferable work and life skills. The process- and life skills learned during POGIL
develop learners for future work-related and life purposes. The process skills are also
referred to as transferable skills, professional skills, workplace skills, or soft skills and
emphasize the relevance of education when learners prepare to face the world
(Renee, Lantz, & Ruder, 2019). According to POGIL, the process skills are
communication (oral and written), teamwork, information processing, critical thinking,
problem-solving, management, and assessment (self, peer, and metacognition)
(Renee, Lantz, & Ruder, 2019).
Communication is defined as the exchange of information through speaking, listening,
written materials and non-verbal behaviours. Both oral and written communication
requires the use of appropriate language and suitable expressions in both content and
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
33
grammar, which are understood by the audience. Communication both oral and written
is important for learners during POGIL activities as they discuss their ideas to solve
the problem. It is also important as the group present their response to the facilitator
or the whole class. Written communication is important when learners submit written
work for assessment to ensure that the marker clearly understands what is meant by
the written information. The learners need to be well equipped with the proper
language and correct concepts for the subject under discussion (Renee, et al., 2019).
Teamwork is a skill worthy of cultivating in the learners considering the need to work
collectively at a local and global level. Teamwork consists of parameters like team
decision-making, leadership, conflict management, resolution, planning, collaborative
problem-solving, and trust-building. Besides being an asset in their future professions,
these parameters also help learners succeed in their studies (Hughes & Jones, 2011;
Vance, Kulturel-Konak, & Konak, 2014).
Information processing is the interpretation, evaluating and transforming of information
which can be symbols, text, diagrams, plots or models, or translations or transcriptions
aimed at getting to the proper meaning of concepts (Renee, Lantz, & Ruder, 2019).
Learners usually have difficulties interpreting scientific concepts (Greer, 1997;
Nakhleh, 1992; O'Toole & Schefter, 2002). Some studies have revealed that learners
develop mental models of all the things they learn as they make their own
representations of the concepts (Mamombe, Mathabathe, & Gaigher, 2020; Nelson ,
1999; Novick & Nussbaum, 1985). Learners need to process the information and need
to be provided with suitable strategies and resources for effective processing to occur
(Renee, et al., 2019).
Critical thinking involves analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of information to reach a
conclusion with supportive evidence (Renee, Lantz, & Ruder, 2019). It is an essential
outcome of formal education (Fahim & Masoulch, 2012) because it includes
application of skills and resources (Bailin, 2002; Lewis & Smith, 1993). The practice of
critical thinking leads to the development of higher-order thinking skills (Lai, 2011).
Components of critical thinking include, but are not limited to, identifying information
sources, distinguishing between available evidence, evidence-based conclusions, and
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
34
forming judgements based on reasons and evidence (Miri, David, & Uri, 2007; Zohar,
Weinberger, & Tamir, 1994). Unlike POGIL, most formal education rarely aims at
developing critical thinking skills or seek feedback as to the extent to which learners
have developed critical thinking (Renee, et al., 2019).
Problem solving is the process of planning and carefully executing a strategy that finds
a solution to a problem or question (Renee, et al., 2019). The dimensions of problem-
solving include strategy, identification of variables, procedure, and use of formulae
(Carlson & Bloom, 2005; Garrett, 1986; Taasoobshirazi & Glynn, 2009). Problem-
solving requires a non-trivial process involving multi-step procedures to arrive at the
appropriate answer (Renee, et al., 2019). Many instructional methods provide learners
with opportunities that require problem solving, but few provide explanations that guide
learners (Renee, et al., 2019).
Management, also referred to as self-regulated learning, is the ability of learners to
plan, organize, and coordinate others and themselves to accomplishing a goal (Renee,
et al., 2019). The dimensions of management include, but are not limited to, creativity,
decision-making, planning, and organizing. Each learner needs to be educated on
management skills so that they manage themselves and some may become managers
of others (Renee, et al., 2019).
Assessment is the gathering of information and reflecting on previous experiences to
improve future learning and performance (Renee, et al., 2019). Self-assessment and
peer assessment require monitoring of learning progress and determination of learning
needs (Falchikov & Boud, 1989; Walser, 2009).
Metacognition is thinking about, and being critically aware of, one’s thought processes
as a thinker and learner (Renee, et al., 2019). It is composed of self-regulation,
awareness of the demands of a task, understanding factors affecting one’s cognition,
and problem solving (Veenman, 2012; Zohar, Weinberger, & Tamir, 1994). Assessing
process skills in the classroom is often constrained by a lack of resources. The
available resources are channelled into assessing broad institutional goals or
assessing the general aims of the program. There is, therefore, less focus on
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
35
assessing classroom progress or providing feedback to learners and instructors
(Renee, et al., 2019).
POGIL activities are hinged on the learning cycle (Lawson, 1988), where learners
develop process skills through information processing as they use reasoning and
critical thinking to interpret and understand the provided models (Renee, et al., 2019;
Karplus & Their, 1967). The directed questions during the exploration stage of the
learning cycle develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills by guiding learners
to consider certain parameters of a concept during the process of concept
development. These questions direct learners to develop communication skills as they
will have to explain their understanding to one another (Renee, et al., 2019). The use
of the learning cycle promotes scientific argumentation (Kulatunga, Moog, & Lewis,
2014). POGIL activities should, however, not be too hard because learners may not
progress well and may not develop the necessary process skills. The activities be too
easy either, as the learners will end up doing the activities individually and compare
their responses afterwards. POGIL activities, therefore, need to be at a level that
promotes collaboration amongst learners, encouraging them to inquire more from the
available resources and even from the facilitator (Renee, et al., 2019). Table 2.4 shows
the roles assigned to each team member in POGIL and the process skills developed
by assuming each role (Renee, et al., 2019).
Table 2:4
Process skills developed by use of roles in POGIL (Renee, et al., 2019)
Role Tasks Process skills developed
Manager Reads questions to the group. Ensures that all members participate actively. Time keeping. Asks questions for the team.
Management, self and peer assessment, teamwork, oral communication
Presenter/ spokesperson
Presents written or oral answers for the team. Defends group answer to a problem.
Oral and written communication, critical thinking, teamwork
Recorder Completes reflection reports or answers from group quizzes.
Teamwork and written communication.
Reflector Reflects of group experiences or process skills.
Metacognition and assessment, communication, teamwork.
Team strategist
Reflects on how the team functioned and the contributions of team members.
Teamwork, metacognition self and peer-assessment, management.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
36
Technician Manages team materials (apparatus) and their use.
Management, teamwork, communication
POGIL facilitators are encouraged to make annotations on the activities so that they
make follow-up questions to help learners to develop process skills. Such annotations
also remind the facilitator of the questions to ask at an instance to probe learners and
develop process skills (Renee, et al., 2019). The facilitators can focus on one or two
process skills per lesson and make the annotations that will focus on the development
of such skills (Renee, et al., 2019). The nature of instructor facilitation is particularly
important for the development of process skills (Daubenmire & Bunce, 2008;
Daubenmire, et al., 2015; Stanford, Moon, Towns, & Cole, 2016). When learners work
collaboratively, they develop teamwork, communication, management, and other
process skills, but it takes some time for the teams to cultivate team spirit (Loo, 2013).
Assigning learners with roles and changing the roles after a few activities help them to
develop a variety of process skills (Bailey, Minderhout, & Loertscher, 2011; Hanson,
2006; Johnson, 2011).
The instructor can facilitate the development of process skills by asking questions that
promote the use of a particular skill or having group reports (Daubenmire, et al., 2015;
Kulatunga & Lewis, 2013; Stanford, Moon, Towns, & Cole, 2016). The nature of group
interactions increases when the instructor asks more guiding questions or requires
learners to provide justification to their answers (Daubenmire & Bunce, 2008;
Daubenmire, et al., 2015; Kulatunga, Moog, & Lewis, 2014; Stanford, Moon, Towns,
& Cole, 2016). Learners take more time to prepare high-quality responses with sound
argumentation when the instructor asks questions that elicit reasoning. Such probing
questions help learners to justify their conclusions (Renee, et al., 2019). Asking
learners to provide justifications for their responses assists them to think critically
(Daubenmire, et al., 2015). The facilitator enhances critical thinking by asking learners
in each group to explain their responses supporting their claims with reasoning or ask
two teams to explain their responses with supporting evidence to convince each other.
The facilitator may also ask prompting questions to guide learners in the direction they
should be thinking. Observing teachers as they facilitated POGIL activities was useful
in determining the extent to which they used the prompts to encourage the
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
37
development of process skills. Table 2.5 shows some prompts that facilitators should
use to promote and enhance the development of process skills (Renee, et al., 2019).
Table 2:5
Prompts to facilitate development of process skills (Renee, et al., 2019)
Process skill Facilitator prompting statement
Oral communication Justify your answers to each other. Defend your answers with reasoning. Presenter must verbalize the answer of the team.
Written communication
Teams must complete the tasks in full sentences. Teams must write answer on the board/chart.
Management Managers to check in with each member. Managers to pace the team sticking to the given time. Managers to get responses from each team member.
Information processing
Ask teams to identify key terms and their meanings. Teams to think about their prior knowledge applicable to the task.
Critical thinking Teams explain their answers using claim and supporting evidence. Teams with different answers to defend their answers with reasons. Teams to critique an argument or a solution provided.
Problem-solving Teams to explain the strategy for getting an answer. The whole class discusses differing strategies used by teams.
Teamwork Assign roles to each member. Ask if each member agrees with the response. Allow only the manager to ask questions to the facilitator. Assign team projects and quizzes.
POGIL involves the process-oriented and guided inquiry learning components. These
have been described at length in this study and work simultaneously to develop the
learner. The process-oriented component develops the process skills as the learners
work in groups. The presence of a qualified facilitator and well prepared POGIL
worksheets guide learners through the learning cycle during the activities as they
develop concepts. Cognitive processes actively occur as learners attentively
participate and actively interact with the text, with each other and with the facilitator
and as they develop conceptual understanding. Figure 2.3 shows a summarized
picture of components of POGIL.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
38
Figure 2:3
Characteristic components of POGIL (Simonson, 2019)
2.6.3 Advantages of POGIL
There exists a substantial library of readymade and well prepared POGIL worksheets
for science, engineering, and mathematics (Moog & Spencer, 2008; Process Oriented
Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010). Facilitators throughout the world need only adapt the
learning material to their classroom contexts and expectations (Process Oriented
Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010; Simonson, 2019). The POGIL worksheets should be
well constructed so that they lead learners through learning cycles following a series
of activities that guide learners to personally develop concepts. One of the advantages
of POGIL as an inquiry approach is that it is not confined to one source of information.
The learners can search from many information sources such as textbooks, the
internet, peers, or the facilitator, which they may use to acquire knowledge (Mabusela
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
39
& Adams, 2016; Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010; Simonson, 2019).
Well trained facilitators adapt POGIL worksheets so that learners can learn in context
and, therefore, develop an in-depth understanding of the content (Mamombe, Kazeni,
& de Villiers, 2016). POGIL promotes strong self-directed learners who can face real-
life problems when leaving school (Kompa, 2012; Process Oriented Guided Inquiry
Learning, 2010). POGIL helps learners by focusing on the development and use of
high-level cognitive and metacognitive skills (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom,
1956; Simonson, 2019). These high-order cognitive skills form the basis of
investigative skills used when searching for information, analysing, synthesizing,
evaluating, creating, and organizing findings. These skills show learners’
understanding of the content and not just memory recall (Bloom, 1956; McGuire &
McGuire, 2015; Zohar & Dori, 2012). The cognitive and metacognitive skills are helpful
for learners to become self-regulated, continue research to discover more knowledge,
and for learners to be aware of what they know and what they need to know (McGuire
& McGuire, 2015; Nelson , 1999; Zohar & Dori, 2012).
Inquiry, and particularly POGIL, allows for the active participation of all learners,
encouraging them to have dialogue and engaging them in inductive and systematic
thinking (Simonson, 2019; Alebiosu, 2005). During POGIL, learners share their ideas
and exchange roles as they discuss problems giving supporting reasons. POGIL
practitioners work as a team in the POGIL project to expand the teaching approach to
all parts of the world. They train POGIL facilitators and guide and assist those already
trained. They have a networking facility for all teachers and prospective POGIL
teachers who are either interested in or already using POGIL in their classrooms
(Moog & Spencer, 2008; Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010; Simonson,
2019). Another advantage is that learners develop concepts by themselves, thereby
reaching the ‘aha’ moment which helps them to remember what they learnt. POGIL
helps the development of process skills which are an essential goal of teaching.
2.6.4 Shortcomings and challenges of implementation
A study by Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) revealed that unguided or minimally
guided instruction may not be effective in eliciting learner understanding. For that
reason, POGIL has a principle that a POGIL class must be facilitated by a POGIL-
trained facilitator, and that a POGIL lesson cannot be allowed to proceed in the
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
40
absence of a POGIL-trained facilitator (Clark, 1969; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006;
Moog & Spencer, 2008; Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010). The
unavailability of trained teachers in Africa and many parts of the world means that they
cannot implement POGIL method though they can access POGIL worksheets freely
on the internet. Another constraint of POGIL is the amount of time it takes from training
to the actual implementation of POGIL lessons (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006;
Kurumeh, Jimin, & Mohammed, 2012; Simonson, 2019). School curricula are
structured to have weekly topics and the Department of Education provides tests at
the end of each term where all the expected topics are covered. The fixed timeframe
may not work for POGIL, because more time is required to complete the topics and
may not meet the requirements of mandatory assessments. A further limitation is the
lack of teachers with in-depth science content knowledge. During POGIL, the teacher
must be able to assist learners at any learning stage of the worksheet. The teacher
must guide the learners when they are lost by asking guiding questions or referring
them to appropriate text (Bybee, 1997; Bybee, 2010). Lastly, another setback of
POGIL teaching may be that of noisy classes as learners will be involved in a lot of
discussions (Alemu & Schulze, 2012; Pascarella & Terenzin, 2005).
Many teachers are not aware of the results which demonstrate the effectiveness of
POGIL (Simonson, 2019). Most teachers and lecturers, especially in Africa, do not
know the POGIL method. For example, during two workshops held in 2018 in a district
in Pretoria, South Africa, all twenty lecturers and twenty-five high school teachers were
unaware of POGIL as a teaching approach.
Most teachers are concerned about learning a new teaching approach. Such teachers
tend to resist the new method so that they keep on using the old methods. This may
be due to the fear of the unknown, while some may think of POGIL as a difficult method
(Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010). Some teachers complain that
POGIL method requires too much time to cover all the content in the annual teaching
plan. POGIL may also be impractical when classes have large number of learners
(Simonson, 2019). In such cases it may be difficult for one teacher to control too many
groups in the same class at the same time.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
41
2.6.5 Information Processing Model
Bransford, Brown and Cooking (1999) discussed the importance of information
processing on cognition. The information processing model is aligned to constructivist
and Piagetian notions that knowledge is constructed by the learner based on
experiences (Piaget, 1930; Wadworth, 1989). The model by Bransford, Brown and
Cooking (1999) describes how people acquire knowledge and how they integrate it
with existing knowledge to gain new understanding. Humans observe the environment
using their senses of sight, hearing, feeling, smelling, or tasting. When knowledge
reaches the sense organs, some of it is perceived but some knowledge may not be
perceived. The knowledge that is not perceived is lost. For this reason, teachers need
to communicate in the language, method and context that is understandable by the
learners using suitable teaching aids (Bransford, Brown, & Cooking, 1999).
All perceived knowledge is ready for scrutiny by the perception filter. The knowledge
that is perceived as irrelevant is lost and forgotten, while the knowledge perceived as
relevant is sent to the working memory. In this regard, a well-prepared lesson will not
have a lot of irrelevant information. Only relevant knowledge is ready for assimilation.
However, before assimilating new knowledge, the related prior knowledge will be
retrieved and analysed together with the new knowledge. This may lead to the new
knowledge being assimilated together with the related old knowledge after proper
coding. The old or new knowledge may be rejected depending on which one is
perceived to be meaningful. Only meaningful information is stored in the long-term
memory. Any information perceived as relevant is initially stored in the working
memory while prior knowledge is recalled from the long-term memory. Possible new
connections can be developed between new and prior knowledge (Bransford, Brown,
& Cooking, 1999). The comparison of new and old information forms the centre of the
learner’s reasoning and critical thinking. Figure 2.4 shows the information processing
model (Bransford, Brown, & Cooking, 1999).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
42
Figure 2:4
Information processing model (adapted from Bransford, et al., 1999)
The information processing model is useful for POGIL instructors and is examined
through the learning cycle lens. Because humans observe the environment with their
senses, some of this may be relevant and considered for storage. Other data may not
be perceived as relevant and may not be stored (Bransford, Brown, & Cooking, 1999).
This is partly because the brain has a limited capacity for storage (Miller, 1956). The
perception filter prevents information that is not essential to the task at hand from
reaching the short-term memory. This is important to avoid overloading the short-term
memory with unneeded information (Bransford, Brown, & Cooking, 1999). Instructors
should consider the role of the perception filter to effectively guide learners on what is
relevant.
During the learning cycle activities, the questions asked will direct learners’ attention
to relevant information. Such questions should include the learners’ prior knowledge
to depart from the known point of view. When the learners retrieve information from
the long-term memory, they will be able to compare it with the current information.
During exploration and concept invention, appropriate information processing leads to
the integration of relevant information with the long-term structures (Johnstone, 1997).
Questions in the learning cycle activities are layered so that relevant ideas are
explored more than once in an organized way. This repetition helps the learners to
digest the information and promotes the uptake of relevant information into the long-
term memory (Johnstone, 1997). In a POGIL classroom, the facilitator listens to group
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
43
discussions or reads the answers of the groups to determine if they are on course. If
not, the facilitator will provide additional information or ask questions to get the
learners to refer to their prior knowledge and compare the additional information with
the current information (Smith, Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2015).
A person’s prior knowledge or belief may hinder or help the interpretation of new
information. Learners can be biased due to culture or religion. A person’s religious
belief may hinder them from accepting new information due to what they believe to be
right (Smith, Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2015). Sometimes prior knowledge can be
incorrect or limited (misconception). Learners have observed the environment since
infancy and some of this information is already stored in the long-term memory, though
it may not have been examined in difficult contexts. Misconceptions are not easy to
erase unless meaningful information is brought in to replace the misconception
(Areepattamannil, 2012). For this reason, instructors need to be selective of the
teaching methods they use during classroom activities. Teachers need to be aware of
the prior knowledge of the learners to pre-empt and avoid misconceptions. To date,
lists of previously identified misconceptions that are common among learners have
been identified in each topic (Balushi, Ambusaidi, Al-Shuaili, & Taylor, 2012; Dahsah
& Coll, 2007).
The context of a situation may also affect the way learners retrieve information from
the long-term memory, including what passes through the perception filter. This is
because some contexts may not be familiar to the learners (Mamombe, Kazeni, & de
Villiers, 2016). POGIL teachers need to use appropriate contexts to make the
information meaningful to learners.
Individuals have different abilities when it comes to retaining pertinent ideas in working
memory. Some individuals capture and retain information that is not relevant (Vogel,
McCullough, & Machizawa, 2005), thereby reducing the availability of relevant ideas.
The capacity of working memory continues to develop into adolescence, up to around
20 years (Peverill, McLaughlin, Finn, & Sheridan, 2016). Students who do not have
refined perception filters by the time they leave high school often struggle to process
difficult tasks. They need special strategies to free up working memory space. POGIL
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
44
activities contain strategies which can be used to free the working memory of irrelevant
ideas. It is essential that relevant information required for the completion of tasks is
passed through the perception filter into the working memory because individuals
possess limited working memory capacity. The perception filter can be re-shaped over
time due to experiences. Some new experiences can cause the perception filter to be
re-moulded. The bias due to religion, misconceptions and other factors may be re-
moulded through new experiences (Peverill, McLaughlin, Finn, & Sheridan, 2016).
POGIL is subject to the constraints of the perception filter and the short-term memory.
As such, POGIL instructors carefully select and limit the information they provide and
monitor the knowledge the learners bring to the task in real time. The processing of
information done in the working memory is critical for interpreting the information,
making comparisons, and rearranging information for storage in the long-term
memory. Carefully crafted learning cycle activities used in POGIL help students to
organize and rearrange information.
In the following paragraphs, I will describe the cognitive processing and concept
development as viewed by the POGIL way of teaching.
2.6.6 Cognitive Processing
Since the nineteenth century, it is evident that inquiry was the proper method to teach
science for understanding but there seemed to have been no effective change in
science methodology (DeBoer, 1991; Levin & Cuban, 1993). The inquiry approach
only gained ground in the twentieth century because of growing interest in
experimental research in psychology and sociology. That is when human cognition
was first tested (Pennar, Batsche, Knoff, & Nelson, 1993; Bruer, 1993).
Festinger (1957) described the theory of cognitive dissonance where a learner is
provided with information contrary to their existing knowledge beliefs or values
(Festinger, 1957). This state of dissonance is a point of conflict that is fertile ground
for learning (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982; Hewson, 1992). If the new
information is appropriately related to the existing ideas, then conceptual change
occurs, and the new idea is accommodated. If the new idea has no proper links with
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
45
existing knowledge, then it is rejected, and the learner keeps the old conception
(Posner, et al., 1982; Hewson, 1992).
During inquiry, therefore, a learner can freely explore the new information from the
text, from peers and the facilitator. This may result in positive conceptual change.
While during a lecture method the teacher is doing all the talking and is unaware of
the cognitive conflicts in the minds of the learners. The teacher is therefore unable to
provide enough supporting evidence the learners may need for effective conceptual
change.
Newell and Simon (1972) studied the theory of human problem solving as it relates to
memory function, goal-setting and usual representation (Newell & Simon, 1972). The
study by Piaget and Inhelder (1969) and that by Wadworth (1989) demonstrated that
as children learn mathematics and science, they develop personal models to explain
concepts such as number properties and reasoning abilities, such as control of
variables and, ratio and proportional reasoning (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969; Wadworth,
1989). Learners acquire conceptions of the world formally of informally and these
conceptions undergo evolution (Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghein, 1985). The learners
use personal mental evidence to represent almost every concept they have come
across in the form of mental models. Such mental models may be difficult for scientists
to interpret and are called “emerging ideas” (Mamombe, Mathabathe, & Gaigher,
2020) or “strange idea” (Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghein, 1985). The study by Driver,
Guesne and Tiberghein (1985) resulted in many investigations in the 1980s and 1990s
regarding learners’ misconceptions at all education levels (Wandersee, Mintzes, &
Novak, 1994).
Constructivism has recently gained traction in education and psychology. In
constructivism, knowledge and understanding must be personally constructed in the
mind of the learner (Simonson, 2019). Learners construct knowledge and
understanding in any classroom setting, but a well-designed instructional approach
facilitates efficient and successful knowledge construction (Fosnor, 1996; Tobin,
1993).
Ausubel, Novak and Hanesian (1986) argued that ideas learned meaningfully are
incorporated in the cognitive structures so that they will become memorable and
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
46
reliable because they are connected to pre-existing cognitive structures (Simonson,
2019; Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1986; Ausubel, 1978). This is contrary to rote
learning where there is no link between pre-existing knowledge and new knowledge.
New ideas which are not connected to existing ideas are less likely recallable and are
usually lost (Novak, 1977).
Vygotsky (1986) studied the sociocultural development and knowledge constructivism
in what is called the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Moll, 1990; Vygotsky,
1934/1986). Vygotsky (1934/1986) suggests that learning is most effective when the
task is within cognitive reach and is an obtainable goal. The facilitators must be aware
of moments in the activities when learners get stuck and need help. The zone may
require creative thinking and facilitators need to properly guide the learners so that the
task remains within cognitive reach. Reaching the ZPD may be difficult for individual
learners working in unguided activities, but with POGIL the situation is tailor-made to
facilitate tasks to come within cognitive reach. This is the reason why POGIL
worksheets are carefully designed to take learners from the simple familiar concepts
to the more complex ones. Learner interaction and constant support from the facilitator
keeps learners’ attention and guides it toward concept invention and understanding.
Communication between learners and the facilitator is critical for the development of
understanding (Bruner & Haste, 1990; Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning,
2010).
2.6.7 Reasoning
Reasoning is a human’s ability to logically draw inferences by use of argumentation
(Merriam-Webster, 2020). It is the activity of evaluating arguments (Goel, Gold, Kapur,
& Houle, 1997). It is used formally or informally for decision making, critical thinking
and logically solving problems. Learners apply reasoning when they use their
understanding to apply, analyse, evaluate, and create knowledge.
According to Facione and Facione (2008), there are two overlapping systems of
reasoning that are active in human decision-making, system 1 and system 2. System
1 is based on rote learning and practice and is reactive, instinctive, quick, and holistic.
System 2 is based on critical thinking and metacognition and is reflective, deliberate,
analytical, and procedural (Facione & Facione, 2007; Facione & Facione, 2008).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
47
System 1 relies heavily on heuristics and existing memories to make quick judgments
in familiar situations where immediate action is required (Facione & Facione, 2007;
Facione & Facione, 2008). Often, the decisions made using system 1 help to quickly
avert danger. System 2 is argument-based and relies slightly on heuristics integrated
with several logical arguments to make judgments in unfamiliar situations, for
processing abstract concepts, and for deliberate planning and comprehensive
consideration (Facione & Facione, 2008; Facione & Facione, 2007). Both systems
work simultaneously, balancing each other in a way that each system works where it
is best needed. People operate with both systems of reasoning, but it is possible to
identify when a person is skewed to one system or the other. Both systems are used
to make judgements while reasoning.
An education system aimed at improving one’s critical thinking, that is, at improving
ones problem-solving and process skills to engage purposeful reflective judgment, is
focused on strengthening one’s system-2 problem solving and decision making
(Facione & Facione, 2008; Facione & Facione, 2007). When system 2 works optimally
the decision is based on interpretation, analysis, evaluation, explanation, and self-
correction (Facione & Facione, 2008; Facione & Facione, 2007). System 2 values
intellectual honesty, analysis of facts, fairness, truthfulness and is without biases. Both
systems make use of cognitive heuristic and each learner makes use of both systems
but with different levels of intensity. Figure 2.5 shows how the two systems relate to
one another and how both lead to decision-making (Facione & Facione, 2008).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
48
Figure 2:5
The argument and heuristic analysis model by Facione & Facione, (2008)
Decision-making based on reasoning demonstrates how the answer is correct. It
demonstrates the procedure of getting to the answer which is the final decision. It
shows the understanding held by the decision-maker as the basis of taking up such a
decision (Facione & Facione, 2007; Facione & Facione, 2008). This separates
decision-making based on reasoning and decision-making based on guessing. This is
the type of reasoning necessary for solving tasks that require a conceptual
understanding of abstract concepts such as the ones found in chemistry.
According to Paans, Nieweg, Vermeulen, and van der Werf (2008), logical reasoning
can be structured as deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, deductive-abduction
reasoning, and the common fallacies. Deductive reasoning begins with a major theory,
generalization, fact, or premise that generates specific details and predictions (Paans,
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
49
Nieweg, Vermeulen, & van der Werf, 2008). This is reasoning from the general to the
particular and is defined as follows: if the facts in the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true (Johnson-Laird, 1999). The truth of the premises ensures the
truth of the conclusion (Knauffa, Mulacka, Kassubek, Salih, & Greenleed, 2002).
Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up formal method that seeks theories to explain
observations. The truth of the premises does not warrant the truth of the conclusion
(Knauffa, Mulacka, Kassubek, Salih, & Greenleed, 2002). Abductive reasoning is a
bottom-up, less rigorous formal method that seeks theories and allowing good
guesses to explain observations (Knauffa, Mulacka, Kassubek, Salih, & Greenleed,
2002).
Solving problems in a deductive way entails (a) comprehension of the propositions;
(b) comprehension of the question; (c) search for information asked for in the question;
and (d) construction of an answer. Comprehension of the question determines the
search for the information asked and the construction of the answer (Clark, 1969). In
line with Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain, the lowest stage of remembering
corresponds to the comprehension of propositions and comprehension of the
question. The search for information corresponds to the stages of understanding and
analysis, applying, evaluating, and creating. All these cognitive stages require
reasoning and critical thinking (Kuiper & Pesut, 2004; McGuire & McGuire, 2015).
An argument is a reason-claim combination (Arons, 1979). So, as learners perform
group discussions, they make claims of a certain answer being correct and that claim
is based on reasoning which they show by explanation or by calculations. A claim is a
statement by which the person judges whether something is correct, while a reason is
the justification of why he/she believes that the claim is true (Arons, 1979).
Arons (1979) found that arithmetic ratio reasoning is necessary for predicting
numerical change, for example, the gravitational or electric forces when given new
values in different scenarios, the calculation of the actual size of objects viewed under
a microscope, or its use in demographic data. This same kind of reasoning is needed
by learners to perform stoichiometric calculations as the learners use the ratio
technique to identify the limiting reagent, to explain a shift in equilibrium, and
explaining changes in the rate of reaction when some factor is altered. Learners should
also be able to reason, not only quantitatively using formulae, but also on how they
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
50
got the conclusive answer and from the inferences made, through qualitative
explanations or demonstrations (Arons, 1979).
Much of the teaching and learning methods assume that reasoning capabilities are
already developed, or that they will develop with maturity or through increased
understanding of the subject matter, however, such automatic development only
occurs in the upper 25% of successful learners (Arons, 1979; Jones, 2007). Research
has shown that critical thinking seems to increase only if taught explicitly using learner-
centred methods such as inquiry (Abrami, et al., 2008). A critical thinker must be skilled
at reasoning (cognitive process) for drawing conclusions (Facione, 2009). Critical
thinking instruction enhances performance and when combined with practice, critical
thinking increases knowledge retention (Heijltjes, van Gog, Leppink, & Paas, 2014).
High school learners have been observed to lack problem-solving ability in
stoichiometry which is essential for their performance at tertiary level (Lausin, 2020).
Teachers are encouraged to impart higher-order thinking skills such as critical thinking,
problem solving, rational thought, and reasoning (Cuban, 1984). Chemistry learning
based on analogy positively impacts the higher-order thinking skills (Rahayu &
Sutrisno, 2019). Some researchers have provided lesson plans for Grade 4 to 9
teachers so that the teachers may incorporate them in lessons to improve critical
thinking among the learners (Paul, Binker, & Weil, 1990). This means critical thinking
does not only focus on higher-level education, even lower-level learners need to think
critically (Lewis & Smith, 1993). When the solution to a problem is not easily
attainable, solving such would require reasoning (productive thinking) to identify a
pattern of the parts that have been integrated using past experiences (Maier, 1933).
High-order thinking skills involve reasoning or productive behaviour, while lower-order
thinking skills are learned behaviour or reproductive thinking (Maier, 1933). Critical
thinking requires being reasonable and reflective in thinking and focused on deciding
what to believe or do (Ennis, 1987). Schools are improving in teaching the basics but
not focusing on teaching about thinking (Glaser, 1983). As defined by Facione and
Facione (2008), critical thinking is the process which considers available evidence,
contexts, or methods to give a purposeful judgement (Facione & Facione, 2008).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
51
Process-oriented programs aim to develop reasoning habits and learning skills to
improve performance, metacognition, and self-monitoring of problem-solving learners
(Bloom & Broder, 1950). POGIL activities seem to educate learners to develop critical
thinking skills when they examine the questions individually and get to the interactive
stage where they must give their responses accompanied by suitable reasoning or
justifications (Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010; Simonson, 2019).
POGIL is without doubt contrary to rote learning; its focus being on learners engaging
in critical thinking and metacognition (Moog & Spencer, 2008; Process Oriented
Guided Inquiry Learning, 2010).
2.6.8 Metacognitive Processing
Metacognition means thinking about your own thinking (McGuire & McGuire, 2015;
Simonson, 2019). The learner at this level is no longer passive and depending on
remembering but is now involved in the active mode of analysis, applying, and creating
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Bloom, 1956). Science education becomes increasingly
relevant when taught using strategies that encourage the practice of investigations
along with the meta-level understanding (Zimmerman, 2007).
In practical situations, when self-regulation learning is supported, metacognition
insights are developed, and this strengthens the cognitive (critical thinking) and the
metacognitive (reflective thinking) (Cullipher, Sevian, & Talanquer, 2015; Kuiper &
Pesut, 2004; Sevian & Talanquer, 2014). Critical thinking supports learners to make
logical and unbiased decisions and leads to better learning (Facione, 2009;
Helsdingen, Van Gog, & & Van Merriënboer, 2011). Critical thinking skills are
important for an individual to make well-informed decisions and reasonably explain
their ideas when solving problems (Thomas, 2011). Critical thinking is the intellectual
work of the mind that involves thinking (Willingham, 2007). Reflective thinking is
metacognition, that is, executive control and self-communication about experiences
(Kuiper & Pesut, 2004). Environment-based programs demonstrated positive effects
on critical thinking skills and the disposition towards critical thinking skills of Grade 9
and 12 learners (Ernst & Manroe, 2004). Science and technology taught using an
inquiry-based approach demonstrated significant effects on learners’ critical thinking
skills in science (Duran & Dokme, 2016; Herawati, Hakim, & Nurhadi, 2020)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
52
During POGIL activities, learners engage in the constructive stage of finding meaning
in the information or questions. Each learner is aware that they will give their ideas to
the group and justify their answer during the interactive stage. Therefore, they must
carefully think about their own thinking so they can confidently defend their ideas with
suitable reasoning in the group. Such learners can monitor their own thinking to
improve their performance (Nelson , 1999; Zohar & Dori, 2012). Some of this activity
is explicit, controllable, and learnable. Metacognition is a general goal with respect to
critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, and as such, POGIL worksheets are
designed with metacognition in mind (Simonson, 2019; Process Oriented Guided
Inquiry Learning, 2010). POGIL acknowledges that knowledge is constructed in the
mind of the learner, and it is an active process occurring in steps or cycles to embed
new ideas into long-term cognitive structures (Simonson, 2019).
2.7 Conceptual framework
The current research is based on constructivist philosophy which holds that learning
happens in the mind of the learner and involves the development of mental constructs
or models (Vygotsky, 1934/1986). The conceptual framework used in this study is the
Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive framework (ICAP) (Chi, 2009; Chi, 2011).
The Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive framework
The ICAP framework is based on the constructivist theory which acknowledges
development of mental constructs by the learners (Vygotsky, 1934/1986). ICAP is
used to differentiate the levels of cognitive engagement by learners during the POGIL
intervention in various types of learning environments (Chi, 2011). The observable
behaviours of learners define their levels of engagement, the assumption being that
the behaviour of learners during an activity is related to the underlying cognitive
process. The framework identifies that learners can be cognitively engaged in the
given task or not. This is shown with the “on-task” as cognitively engaged and “off-
task” as cognitively disengaged. The latter is not paying attention to the activity; that
the learner may be daydreaming, absentminded, asleep, or unfocused. Cognitively
engaged learners will be attending to the activity at any of the four different levels of
engagement, these being interactive, constructive, active, or passive. The top three
levels of engagement are components of active learning. The top two levels of
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
53
engagement, interactive and constructive, represent minds-on, in-depth processing of
information. This is where high-order thinking skills are at work. The lower two levels
of cognitive engagement, the active and passive, represent hands-on shallow
processing strategies (Chi, et al., 2018). Figure 2.6 shows a summary of the actions
on each level of engagement as discussed on the ICAP framework (Chi, et al., 2018).
Figure 2:6
The ICAP theory of active learning (Chi, et al., 2018)
The ICAP framework used in the current study to observe the learners’ engagement
during the POGIL intervention imposes three main assumptions. The first assumption
is that the learners’ cognitive engagement can be defined by their evident behaviours
and products (test scripts or group answers). The second assumption is that evident
behaviours and the resulting products may imply distinguishable underlying cognitive
knowledge-change processes. Assuming that knowledge can be represented as
node-link structures, ICAP assumes that the four elementary processes (storing,
activating, linking, and inferring) illustrate how different behaviours can elicit various
combinations of these elementary processes. The third assumption is that the
correspondence between evident behaviours and the underlying knowledge change
processes is not perfect, but the learners’ behaviours closely represent their thoughts
(Chi, et al., 2018; Chi, 2011).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
54
The following paragraphs describe the four modes/levels of engagement as illustrated
in the ICAP framework and fifth level of disengagement. I shall also indicate how these
levels of engagement relate to the learners’ behaviours during the lesson.
1. Level I: Collaborating, or the Interactive mode/level of engagement
The collaborative/interactive level in ICAP refers to interactions between two peers (or
a small group) in dialogues that result in mutual and reciprocal co-generation of ideas
(Damon, 1984; Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 1999). This interaction must meet two
criteria: (a) the utterances of the members must be constructive (adding new ideas)
and (b) each member’s contribution addresses or engages the other member’s
contributions (co-generating). For example, speakers should build-on, elaborate,
justify, explain, challenge, or question each other’s ideas until they agree on a common
answer.
Collaboration entails inferences from all contributors in the group. The knowledge-
change processes during collaborative interactions are store, activate, link, infer-from-
own, and infer-from-other. Interactive collaboration may result in innovative knowledge
that neither partner could have generated alone, leading to enriched knowledge
structures. These two criteria of collaborative learning during the interactive mode are
also consistent with the construct of dialogical reasoning where each member in the
team listens to and considers the views of the other members, adding or elaborating
on such ideas in the process of collaborative knowledge-building (Brown & Campione,
1994; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996).
For the purposes of this study, the interactive level does not only imply agreed upon
consensus or the development of new constructs but rather the presence of
collaboration in terms of bringing ideas from different persons and putting them
together and building on each other’s ideas (Rochelle, 1992). Whether there is
disagreement in the discussions or not, or just exploratory talk (Mercer, 1996), the
important factor is learner-to-learner interactions which serves as a good start for
future more productive interactions between learners and the development of valuable
process skills (Chi, et al., 2018).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
55
2. Level II: Generating, or the Constructive mode/level of engagement
During the constructive level of engagement, learners generate behaviours, or
externalized ideas containing information beyond what was initially provided. The
outputs of generative behaviours could be a concept map showing evidence of new
ideas that go beyond the information given, where learners can find similarities and
differences. The learners engage in critical questions which do not have obvious
answers. Constructive behaviours include explaining, taking notes in one’s own words,
posing problems, asking questions, drawing a concept map, predicting, inventing,
arguing, inducing hypotheses, self-evaluating or monitoring one’s understanding, or
creating a timeline. The knowledge-change processes that are cognitively associated
with being constructive are that learners generate new knowledge by inferring, from
activated prior knowledge, from new knowledge or the integration of old and new
knowledge. Constructive processes include all four elementary processes of
knowledge which are activating, linking, inferring, and storing the linked and inferred
knowledge (Chi, et al., 2018; Chi, 2011). The constructive level is higher than the active
level in terms of the elementary processes described in the previous paragraph, in that
it includes “inferring”. During the constructive level, learners link the new concepts to
the previous knowledge. This results in the activation and inclusion of previous
knowledge in the current cognitive processes, thereby linking (merging and re-
organizing) the old and new information. The learner goes on to explain, justify, or
evaluate the concepts and come up with inferences. This leads to storage of desirable
information or rejection of undesirable information, leading to more elaborate
knowledge structures.
The constructive level is compatible with constructivism in that the learners “construct”
their own knowledge rather than “being told” by a teacher (Piaget, 1930; Bruner, 1961;
Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1986). The constructive actions in the ICAP framework
include explaining, posing questions, making comparisons, elaborating one’s own
thinking, or inventing.
3. Level III: Manipulating, or the Active mode/level of engagement
At the active level, learners physically manipulate or operationalize instructional
materials without providing any new information. Typical activities include pointing to
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
56
or gesturing, repeating, copying, or rehearsing, underlining, or choosing, etcetera,
which all draw learners’ attention to focus on what they are doing. As a result of the
focused attention, prior knowledge may be activated thereby allowing information
processing and subsequent knowledge integration to occur. This may lead to the new
information being assimilated or embedded with this activated prior knowledge. Active
engagement involves three elementary cognitive processes (storing, activating, and
linking), that is why ‘hands-on’ activities often facilitate learning (Chi, et al., 2018; Chi,
2011). The three cognitive processes exist at this level because active engagement
may link current knowledge to prior knowledge. The prior knowledge may, therefore,
be activated when the learner identifies the relationships between the concepts. This
may result in the storage of desirable knowledge or rejection of undesirable
information.
4. Level IV: Paying attention, or the Passive mode/level of engagement
At the passive level, paying attention is the behaviour of being oriented toward and
receiving information. Actions that entail paying attention include reading a text
silently, watching a video, or listening to an online lecture or instructions from the
teacher without undertaking any other visible activities (Chi, et al., 2018; Chi, 2011).
At the passive level, the learners are not engaged in any discussions or writing down
anything. The learners will, however, be engaged mentally in constructing ideas or
organizing their facts or making sense of the activity at hand.
5. Level 5: Disengage level
For the purposes of my study, the disengage level was considered as a level of
engagement. It was anticipated that a fifth level where learners are not focused on the
given task and doing other things that are not related to the classwork would be
necessary. The learners may be playing, making jokes, or any other activities apart
from the work assigned to them. The learners’ cognitive processes at this level are not
related to the given task. The learners are engaged in other activities with various
cognitive levels of engagement.
The ICAP framework is the muscle behind the POGIL classroom’s powerful learning
environment that leads to understanding, reasoning, and critical thinking as opposed
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
57
to traditional methods. Table 2.6 below is a summarized description of the ICAP
discussed in this section (Chi, et al., 2018; Chi, 2011).
Table 2:6
Learner activities and cognitive processes in the ICAP framework (Chi, 2011)
Interactive Constructive Active Passive Disengage
Characteristics Group discussion on the same topic, sharing ideas
Individually Producing new outputs
Doing something physically
Not doing anything
Doing other things
Learner activities
Revise errors argue, defend confront or challenge, build-on, elaborate, justify, explain, question
Explain or elaborate justify or provide reasons, construct a concept map, plan, and predict, explain, taking notes
Underline or highlight gesture or point, copy, and paste, repeating.
Looking gazing listening reading text silently, watching a video, or listening to a lecture
Playing, laughing, running around, doing other work
Cognitive processes
Collaborative Processes including partner’s ideas
Generative Infer or integrate new knowledge Organize knowledge
Manipulative Activate prior knowledge, Assimilate, encode, store information.
Attentive information received for processing
Unfocussed Not related to given task
(Chi M. T ., 2011)
2.8 Chapter Summary
This chapter is a discussion of the literature related to the current study. It identified
and considered the literature on stoichiometry, Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive
domains, active learning, and inquiry-based learning of which POGIL is just one
example. The discussion of advantages and disadvantages of POGIL as well as
reasoning, cognition and metacognition were also provided. The final section looked
at the conceptual framework which guided this study. The literature cited has revealed
the relationship between the concepts which surround mental processes. Many
researchers have sought ways to the problems faced by learners in stoichiometry.
Teaching approaches, the content knowledge of the teacher, learners’ understanding
and critical thinking, among other areas, have been investigated to find solutions to
learners’ challenges. All these and other studied areas have some effect on learners’
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
58
understanding, critical thinking, problem-solving and reasoning. It seems that the
learners’ challenges are caused by many factors which work individually or in unison.
The next chapter is a description of the research methodology followed during this
study. It starts with the research paradigm and research design followed by the
sampling method, and then the data collection plan. The data analysis and the aspects
of trustworthiness come just before the ethical considerations which ends the chapter.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
59
3 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter commences with the description of the research paradigm and the
research approach followed by the current study. Afterwards, I describe the sample
and how sampling was done for all the participants of the current study. The data
collection plan follows thereafter, and the data analysis procedure is described.
Trustworthiness, crystallization, and ethical considerations conclude the chapter.
3.2 Research paradigms
The paradigm guiding this study is interpretivism. Interpretivism is the basic paradigm
for qualitative research from which the critical theory and constructivism paradigms
branched (Nieuwenhuis, 2011). An interpretivist researcher believes that reality
consists of people’s subjective experiences of the external world. This study is based
on the relativist ontological view that knowledge is socially and experientially
constructed (social constructivism) (Goldkuhl, 2012; Nieuwenhuis, 2011). I am of the
view that learners’ ideas are better captured and understood by observing them in a
natural classroom context. This paradigm is underpinned by observation and
interpretation. For this reason, the learners’ responses in the pre-intervention test,
POGIL activities and post-intervention test were analysed and interpreted to identify
and characterize the reasoning and understanding of the learners.
The methodological paradigm of this study is qualitative because it appeals to me as
the best way to establish some understanding. Qualitative data was obtained from the
pre-intervention test (Appendix 1), POGIL activities (Appendix 12) and the post-
intervention test (Appendix 3). The methodology for this study is based on pre-
intervention test results, observations of learners doing POGIL activities and their post-
intervention test results, and the teachers’ and learners’ perceptions about POGIL.
These methods allowed dialogue among learners during the intervention, and
dialogue with the learners and the teachers during the respective interviews, to
construct meaningful insight into the learners’ reasoning.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
60
3.3 Research Approach
This research followed a qualitative approach to allow for an in-depth study of how
Grade 11 learners reasoned and engaged using the POGIL approach. Qualitative data
was obtained by analysing how learners reasoned while they performed mathematical
calculations in the pre-intervention test and the post-intervention test. Qualitative data
was also obtained from video and audio recordings of learners as they engaged and
reasoned during discussions during the POGIL intervention. The interview of the
learners after the post-intervention test, and that of the teachers, provided qualitative
data on their respective perceptions of the POGIL way of teaching and learning.
3.4 Research design
This case study explored the effects of an intervention on learners’ reasoning as they
engaged with the content and demonstrated their understanding of stoichiometry,
without the intention to generalize the findings (Ebersohn, Eloff, & Ferreira, 2011;
Maree & Pietersen, 2011). The study also observed the participants in their usual
classroom setting, while following an exploratory design involving pre-intervention
testing, post-intervention testing, observations, and interviews for both the teachers
and the learners. The pre- and post-intervention tests determined learners’ reasoning
before and after the intervention, respectively. The teachers’ and learners’ perceptions
of POGIL were revealed during the respective interviews. Learners’ reasoning was
inferred from their discussions as they completed POGIL activities during the
intervention. POGIL worksheets used during the intervention provided carefully
planned guided inquiry learning which resulted in concept development. The
worksheets lead the learners through a process of concept development combined
with assistance from the facilitator. Existing POGIL worksheets were adapted to the
South African context and used to guide the inquiry component of the lessons. The
POGIL classes were taught by teachers previously trained in POGIL. The lessons
were observed by a POGIL-trained teacher and were also video recorded.
Questions used in the pre-intervention test and the post-intervention test were
developed using the design of past examination papers. Questions in the tests were
open-ended just like the examination questions and the learners showed all their
calculations and answers on their scripts.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
61
The learners answered the tests following the normal expected procedure of selecting
a suitable formula, substituting, and providing the answer with appropriate units. The
analysis of the learners’ scripts established their reasoning in identifying the unknown
and known quantities, selecting appropriate formulae, applying suitable ratio,
conversion of units, correctly substituting values, making the subject of the formula
and calculating the answer. Reasoning was also inferred when learners linked
answers from one step to the next as they did multi-step calculations.
3.5 Sampling
The sample was made up of two Grade 11 physical sciences classes taught by two
different teachers at two different schools. One of the schools, identified as school A,
had 22 learners who participated in this study. In school A there were 10 boys and 12
girls. The second school, school B, consisted of 26 participants. The learners in school
B were 13 boys and 13 girls. The average age of learners in both classes was 16
years. There were other learners in these classes who did not give consent to
participate in the current study. These learners were not considered as participants
because their scripts or intervention activities could not be used for data analysis. The
learners were divided into groups of four except where it was impossible to do so, in
which case there were six learners per group. Each of the teachers participated during
the intervention and during the interview to get their perception of the POGIL way of
teaching.
All learners in the selected classes were taught stoichiometry, regardless of their
participation in the study or not. This topic is part of the syllabus and they could not be
excluded because the topic was not going to be taught again. The only difference was
the POGIL approach, and the observation done during the intervention. However, only
those learners who gave consent to participate and whose parents had also given
consent had their scripts analysed and their group discussions video-recorded and
analysed, while some also participated in the group interview. Learners who did not
give consent were placed in separate groups to avoid their unintentional involvement
in participation in the study without their permission. Such learners were treated like
the rest of the learners with regards to the class activities.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
62
The sampling procedure for schools and teachers was purposeful and convenient.
Sampling of teachers was purposeful because only Grade 11 physical sciences
teachers participated in the study. The sampling of teachers was purposeful in that
only the teachers who willingly participated in the POGIL approach training formed
part of the sample. The POGIL workshop facilitator was a retired American science
teacher who is now working part-time as a POGIL trainer of teachers throughout
America. During a three-day workshop, she trained 25 high school teachers as well as
about 20 university lecturers on teaching using POGIL. The participants were engaged
in various activities and two of the participating teachers even practically taught their
peers using POGIL during the workshop. This demonstrated that the teachers
understood POGIL. Most teachers indicated that they were willing to implement POGIL
activities in their classes before the actual data collection. Many of these teachers
used POGIL in their classes. Two of the teachers who form part of the sample of this
study volunteered to participate in the current study by teaching their learners using
POGIL.
The teachers were purposefully selected based on having at least 5 years’ teaching
experience in Grade 11 physical sciences. Such teachers were believed to have tried
different teaching approaches over the years and may feel the need, or at least be
more open, to try alternative teaching approaches like POGIL to benefit their learners.
The schools were conveniently sampled based on official language proficiency after
consultation with the POGIL-trained subject teachers. The language command of the
learners was necessary to avoid communication challenges. The focus was on both
verbal and written communication so that they could be accessible through the video
recording.
3.6 Data collection
The active participation of all learners in both classes during the intervention is
something that I never expected and wish that in-service science or mathematics
teachers would observe. This may be an eye-opener to the teachers who complain
about learners’ participation. The usually passive learners who worked at almost the
same pace as the usually fast learners was remarkable and exceptional as they
actively participated and constructively collaborated.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
63
Some learners felt intimidated by the class and opted not to speak in the entire class.
During the interventions, such learners actively participated and produced mostly
correct answers to activities. Teachers may need to be aware of this behaviour by
some learners which may be solved by using POGIL or other group activities.
3.6.1 Overview of the data collection procedure
The current study was conducted in six phases at two township high schools in
Pretoria, South Africa, where one Grade 11 physical sciences class per school
participated along with their respective teachers. The six phases of the current study
included the POGIL training of high school physical sciences teachers (including the
two participating teachers), the testing of learners in the pre-intervention test,
observation of the learners’ engagement during the POGIL intervention, the learners’
views expressed during group interviews, and the learners’ responses in the post-
intervention test, and finally, the interview of the participating teachers.
The intervention entailed the teaching of stoichiometry to the sampled grade 11
physical sciences classes. These schools are located in the same educational district
and are attended by black learners of mixed gender. The use of POGIL in this study
facilitated both learners and teachers to follow a process of concept development
which was assumed would likely lead to the appropriate understanding of
stoichiometric concepts with minimum misconceptions. That understanding is
essential to provide the required scientific and logical reasoning to engage the process
skills necessary for concept development.
Essentially, the focus of the study was to observe how POGIL-trained teachers
facilitated the learners’ engagement during the POGIL intervention and how the
teaching assisted learners’ concept development and reasoning as they interacted
with each other. The study also focused on how the learners engaged and reasoned
after the intervention as well as their perception of the POGIL way of teaching. POGIL
worksheets guided learners through carefully designed activities that helped them to
analyse the available data and use their previous scientific experiences such as rules,
principles, laws, and definitions of scientific concepts to come up with appropriate links
between evidence and their reasoning (Brown, Furtak, Timms, Nagashima, & Wilson,
2010). Such arguments that are based on reasoning form the basis of scientific
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
64
reasoning (Kuhn, 1993). The careful design of the worksheets ensured the guided-
inquiry component of the intervention (Llewellyn, 2011).
The study further analysed learners’ reasoning as revealed in the individual pre-
intervention test and post-intervention test scripts, which included choices of formulae
used in calculations, their substitutions, selection of successive formulae and steps to
follow in calculations. The processes involved the use of more than one step, linking
a sequence of steps with suitable ratios. Solving of the problem constitutes the steps
followed by learners in problem-solving and hence their mathematical reasoning. This
study adapted the Department of Education’s classification of questions in tests and
examinations according to levels of complexity in developing the pre-intervention test
and post-intervention test (Department of Basic Education [DoBE NCS-CAPS], 2012).
A level I calculation must be solved in one step, a level II question in two steps, a level
III question needed solution in 3 steps and a level IV question needed solution in 4 or
more steps. A step in this context means selection of one formula, substitution in the
formula and finding the answer.
The pre-intervention test and post-intervention test instruments used in this study were
prepared by adapting the examination type questions for Grade 11 stoichiometry. Both
tests were similarly constructed and included questions at all levels of cognition. The
pre-intervention test consisted of 12 questions – four level I questions, four level II
questions, two level III questions and two, level IV questions. The post-intervention
test consisted of 10 questions of which two were level I questions, three were level II
questions, three were level III questions and two were level IV questions. More details
on the test instruments are provided in sections 3.5.2.1 and 3.5.3.
The tests were reviewed and moderated by the supervisor and three high school
teachers from different schools to ensure reliability and validity. More details have
been provided in section 3.7.1. Data was collected from two classes at two different
schools. All data collection was done at the learners’ respective schools and during
the weekend. This was done to avoid disturbing the normal running of the school. The
two classes were initially given a 1-hour pre-intervention test three days before the
intervention. The learners were taught stoichiometry the previous year in grade 10.
Each learner individually answered the pre-intervention test, which was administered
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
65
by the researcher in the presence of the subject teacher. This initial test revealed the
learners’ initial reasoning in the topic. The learners’ scripts were analysed to get
qualitative data on how they reasoned and arrived at solutions to the questions.
A week later, the 2-hour POGIL interventions were carried out. This started at school
A, followed by school B the following weekend. During the intervention, learners
collectively worked through POGIL worksheets in groups of four or six. Video recording
of all the activities was done for each of the groups. Soon after the intervention, a post-
intervention test was administered. Each learner individually answered the post-
intervention test.
The intervention, which entailed teaching of the learners using POGIL method was
done by the learners’ usual teacher. These teachers were already POGIL-trained by
a qualified expert and had already used the method to teach the same learners in
other topics. Besides that, the researcher worked with the teachers in the preparation
and execution of POGIL activities in the class. Class observations of the lessons was
done in their usual classrooms. The class teachers did mixed ability grouping of
learners in each class, taking care to place consenting learners in the same group so
that the presenter has good language command. In school A, there were 5 groups of
participants with a total of 22 learners. In school B, there were 6 groups of participants
with a total of 26 learners. A total of 48 learners participated in this study.
During the lessons, all the group activities of the consenting learners were video
recorded. The video focused on the written work of each group, showing all the
procedures followed by the learners as they arrived at their answers. The steps taken
by the learners revealed their reasoning and engagement. The researcher observed
the lessons paying attention to the activities done by the learners and how each
teacher managed the class. Three lessons of 40 minutes each were spent during the
intervention. The first lesson covered the first two activities titled model 1 and model
2. The learners were given a 15-minute break after this session. Models 3 and 4 lasted
40 minutes each, with a 15-minute break in between. Video and audio recordings were
used to collect data of the 11 participating groups’ discussions while completing their
POGIL activities. Seven out of 11 group discussions were considered for data
analysis.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
66
The seven groups were identified based on the clarity of their discussion and whether
they worked on camera. This was because it was discovered during video analysis
that some groups carried out their discussions off camera with their voices inaudible
and displaying already completed worksheet to the camera. It was the learners’
responsibility to video record using their cellular phones and download their videos
onto laptops that were provided by the researcher. The lessons were split into four
videos per group according to the number of class activities, making a total of 44
videos. The video and audio recording devices were mounted above the desk of the
scribe in each group as the learners engaged in discussions without revealing the
faces of the learners but only recording their written work. The learners’ pre-
intervention test and post-intervention test scripts were analysed to determine their
reasoning before and after completion of POGIL activities, respectively. Table 3.1
summarizes the estimated duration of each data collection process, the participants
and the aims which guided the collection processes.
Table 3:1
Sequence followed for data collection.
Data collection
Estimated duration
Participants Aim for data collection
Pre-intervention test
1 hour Both classes separately in their classrooms
To get initial understanding and reasoning of learners. The learners’ scripts were qualitatively analysed to identify their initial reasoning.
Intervention 2 hours POGIL teaching of both classes. In their respective classrooms. Taught by their usual teacher
To collect data on the processes of concept development, engagement, and the learners’ reasoning as they arrived at solutions to various POGIL activities. Video recording per group captured all the steps taken by learners.
Lesson observation
2 hours Observing both classes during intervention
To observe the engagement of the learners in class activities. To observe how teachers facilitated the lessons. Observe to what extent the lesson was a POGIL intervention.
Post-intervention test
1 hour Both classes separately in their classrooms
To get the individual understanding of learners after instruction. Their post-intervention test was qualitatively analysed to get their understanding and reasoning in stoichiometry after the intervention.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
67
Interview 10 minutes
The teacher who taught the class using POGIL
To get the opinions of the teacher on how the POGIL activities were carried out. To get information on teachers’ assessment of participation, understanding, reasoning and performance of learners during the lesson.
Interview for learners
10 minutes
One group of learners who participated in the intervention
To get the opinions of the learners with regards to POGIL. The learners’ views on the effectiveness of POGIL with regards to their reasoning, understanding and achievement.
3.6.2 Description of the data collection instruments
Data was collected using pre-intervention tests, post-intervention tests, an observation
schedule, video recording, interview schedules for teachers and the group interviews
for learners. I describe each of these instruments in the following paragraphs.
3.6.2.1 Structure of the pre-intervention test and post-intervention test design
The pre-intervention test (Appendix 1) was used to collect data about the learners’
reasoning in stoichiometry before the intervention, based on their knowledge from
Grade 10 where the same topic was covered. The post-intervention test (Appendix 3)
was used to collect data about the learners’ reasoning in stoichiometry after the
intervention. Both tests were similarly designed.
The test instruments were carefully structured by adapting the past examinations
questions on stoichiometry as well as the syllabus for Grade 11 physical sciences.
This was done to ascertain the validity of the instrument as a tool to assess the
expectations of the learning program. The questions addressed various skills expected
in the examination. Most questions required that the learners use ratios and proportion
method. All the questions also scaffolded around Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive
domain. The simplified table 3.2 below shows the question items, the cognitive levels
and the skills expected of the learner in the pre-intervention test.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
68
Table 3:2:
Structure of question items in the pre-intervention test
Question Question complexity
Technique Cognitive demand
Skills assessed
1 I Understanding
Identify correct formula. Substitute in the formula, identify the correct atomic mass
2 III Ratio Analyse, apply, evaluate
Calculate molecular mass, chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately. Use mole ratio, use the other formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the answer.
3a III Ratio Analyse, apply, evaluate
Calculate molecular mass, chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately. Use mole ratio, use the other formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the answer.
3b II Ratio Analyse, apply, evaluate
Use balanced equation of reaction and mole ratio, use the other formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the final answer.
4a I Recall Remember Remember the definition of limiting reactant
4b IV Ratio Analyse, apply, create, evaluate
Calculate molecular mass, chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately. Use mole ratio from balanced chemical reaction, use the other formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the final answer.
5 IV Ratio, comparison,
Analyse, apply, create, evaluate
Calculate molecular mass of the 3 compounds, convert cm3 to dm3, chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately. Use mole ratio on each of the 3 solutions, calculate number of moles of ions; compare the three values
6a II Comparison Analyse, apply, evaluate
Count number of atoms of each element. Compare on both sides of equation. Use suitable coefficient to balance
6b I Analyse, apply, evaluate
Chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the answer.
6c I Analyse, apply, evaluate
Chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the answer.
6d II Ratio Analyse, apply, evaluate
Use ratios to calculate number of moles
6e II Ratio Analyse, apply, create evaluate,
Use ratios to calculate number of moles, chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the answer.
Table 3.2 shows the complexity of the questions and the techniques that learners were
supposed to use during the answering of the questions. Most of the questions required
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
69
mathematical knowledge such as ratios, calculation, changing subject of formula and
simple substitution in the correct formula. The questions in which ratio technique was
needed are questions 2, 3(a), 3(b), 4(b), 5, 6(d) and 6(e). Table 3.3 shows the
questions, the cognitive levels and the skills expected of the learner in the post-
intervention test.
Table 3:3
Structure of question items in the post-intervention test
Question Question complexity
Technique Cognitive domains
Skills
1 I Understanding
Identify correct formula. Substitute in the formula, identify the correct atomic mass
2 III Ratio Analyse, apply, evaluate
Calculate molecular mass, chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately. Use mole ratio, use the other formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the final answer.
3a III Ratio Analyse, apply, evaluate
Calculate molecular mass, chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately. Use mole ratio, use the other formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the final answer.
3b II Ratio Analyse, apply, evaluate
Use balanced equation of reaction and mole ratio, use the other formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the final answer.
4a I Recall Remember Remember the definition of limiting reactant
4b IV Ratio Analyse, apply, create, evaluate
Calculate molecular mass, chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately. Use mole ratio from balanced chemical reaction, use the other formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the final answer.
5 IV Ratio, comparison
Analyse, apply, create, evaluate
Calculate molecular mass of the 3 compounds, convert cm3 to dm3, chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately. Use mole ratio on each of the 3 solutions, calculate number of moles of ions; compare the three values
6a II Comparison Analyse, apply, evaluate
Count number of atoms of each element. Compare on both sides of equation. Use suitable coefficient to balance
6b III Analyse, apply, evaluate
Chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the answer. Use ratios to calculate number of moles.
6c II Analyse, apply, evaluate
Use ratios to calculate number of moles Chose the correct formula, substitute appropriately, calculate the answer.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
70
The questions in the pre-intervention test and the post-intervention test were of
different levels of complexity. The classification of levels of difficulty of questions was
informed by Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domains (Section 2.2) which is also used
by the Department of Basic Education to classify test items. Table 3.4 below shows
the classification of questions based on the different cognitive levels used in tests
according to the requirements of the department. This table was adapted and
simplified for use in the current study.
Table 3:4
Classification of cognitive levels assessed in DoBE tests and examinations.
Cognitive level
Description of cognitive level Description of the question complexity level and the associated cognitive demand
1 Recall - The learner can recall, remember, and restate facts and other learned information.
Level I question which needs recall from memory. Or a single step calculation requiring basic reasoning.
2 Comprehension - The learner grasps the meaning of information by interpreting and translating what has been learned
An average (level II) question that needs solution over maximum of 2 steps. Reasoning limited to choosing of correct formulae, substitution and calculation of answers making appropriate subject of the formula.
3 Application - The learner can use (or apply) knowledge and skills in other familiar situations and new situations., Analysis - Elements embedded in a whole are identified and the relations among the elements are recognised.
An above average (level III) question where solution is found through up to three steps using different formulae. Reasoning involves to choosing of correct formulae, substitution and calculation of answers making appropriate subject of the formula. Linking two or three formulae with appropriate ratios
4 Evaluation - The learner makes decisions based on in-depth reflection, criticism, and assessment. The learner works at the extended abstract level, Synthesis – the learner creates new ideas and information using the knowledge previously learned or at hand.
An above average (level IV) question solved through multi-steps. Reasoning involves to choosing of correct formulae, substitution and calculation of answers making appropriate subject of the formula. Linking many formulae with appropriate ratios
The pre-intervention test and post-intervention test instruments had the same aim and
were classified according to the level of required competence to solve the problem.
The questions were classified as recall, comprehension, application/analysis, and
evaluation/synthesis, according to their increasing level of difficulty. The DoBE
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
71
requires all tests and examinations to assess process skills, critical thinking, and
scientific reasoning among other skills (Department of Basic Education [DoBE NCS-
CAPS], 2012). These skills are embedded in the questions and appear with different
levels of complexity according to the cognitive level being assessed (Department of
Basic Education [DoBE NCS-CAPS], 2012).
A recall question was either a definition or a single-step simple calculation requiring
basic reasoning. A comprehension question had a maximum of two steps where
appropriate ratio may be necessary to link the two formulae. An application/analysis
question had at least three steps linking the stages with appropriate ratios where
necessary, while an evaluation/synthesis question required multi-step calculations
backed by appropriate ratios.
Question 1 in both the pre-intervention test and the post-intervention test was a recall
question. It required learners to calculate the mass of a substance given the number
of moles by going through a one-step process of getting the correct formula,
substituting appropriately, and getting the answer. The learners were expected to use
the same formula n= 𝑚
𝑀 in both the pre-intervention test as in the post-intervention
test. The learners needed only to select the correct formula provided at the back of
their question paper. They also needed to select and use the relative atomic mass of
the substance in question from the provided periodic table. This question was a one-
step calculation to get to the answer.
Question 2 was also structured similarly in both tests. It was a level III question which
required learners to use multi-step procedures to get to the appropriate answer. In the
pre-intervention test, the learners were supposed to calculate the relative molecular
mass of CO2 while in the post-intervention test, they were given N2O4. In both cases
the learners were supposed to use the formula n= 𝑚
𝑀 to calculate the number of moles.
In the pre-intervention test they were supposed to use the number of moles of CO2 to
calculate the number of moles of oxygen atoms using ratios. Then the learners were
required to use the formula n = 𝑁
𝑁𝐴 to calculate the number of oxygen atoms. Question
2 in the post-intervention test had a similar design but, in this case, learners were only
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
72
required to calculate the number of moles instead of the number of atoms. Both
questions involved multi-steps and needed logical reasoning and conceptual
understanding on the part of applying the stoichiometric ratios.
Question 3 was similarly designed in both the pre-intervention test and the post-
intervention test. The question had a balanced equation of a chemical reaction. In 3(a)
the learners were given the mass of one of the reactants and told that it reacted
completely. In both cases they were supposed to calculate the relative molecular mass
of the reactant with the given mass, with the aid of the provided periodic table of
elements. They were then supposed to use the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀 to calculate the number
of moles in the given mass. They were then supposed to use ratios to find the number
of moles of Cu in the pre-intervention test and number of moles of CO2 in the post-
intervention test. In the case of the pre-intervention test, the learners were supposed
to use the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀 for the second time to calculate the mass of Cu. While in the
post-intervention test, they were supposed to use the formula n = 𝑉
𝑉𝑚 to calculate the
volume CO2 of used. Question 3(a) was classified as a level III question based on the
multi-steps involved.
For question 3(b), learners were supposed to use the initial number of moles they
calculated in question 3(a) above. In the pre-intervention test, they would use mole
ratios to calculate the number of moles of H2 used, after which they would calculate
the volume of H2 consumed by using the formula n = 𝑉
𝑉𝑚 and the molar gas volume
provided in the table of constants. In the post-intervention test learners would use mole
ratios to calculate the number of moles of CaCO3 produced. After which they would
calculate the mass of CaCO3 produced using the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀. This question was
classified as level II.
Question 4 had the same design in both the pre-intervention test and the post-
intervention test. In both tests, the learners were given a balanced chemical equation
of the reaction. In question 4(a) learners were asked to define the limiting reactant.
This was a level I question where learners needed to recall the definition of a limiting
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
73
reactant as the substance that is used completely and determines the amount of
product. The definition was meant to guide learners to identify the limiting reactant in
the second sub-question.
Question 4(b) was more cognitively demanding because it was a level IV multi-step
question. In both the pre-intervention test and post-intervention test, the learners were
given the masses of the two reactants. They were supposed to use the mass of each
reactant and the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀 to calculate the number of moles in the given mass.
They were supposed to use proportions to find the limiting reactant, then use the moles
of the limiting reactant to find the moles of substance produced using ratios before
calculating the molecular mass of the product and using the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀 to calculate
the mass of the product.
Question 5 was of a similar design for both the pre-intervention test and the post-
intervention test. It was demanding, being a level IV multi-step question that required
critical thinking. Both questions required learners to identify a solution with the highest
concentration of ions when a given mass of substance is dissolved to make a volume
solution. There were three solutions in the pre-intervention test and, two solutions in
the post-intervention test. In each case, the learners were supposed to calculate the
relative molecular mass of the given substance. After which they were supposed to
change the volume from cm3 to dm3 and use the formula c = 𝑚
𝑀𝑉 or n =
𝑚
𝑀 and c =
𝑛
𝑉
to calculate the concentration of the solution. The learners were supposed to use ratios
to calculate the concentrations of the ions in question and then compare to find the
highest concentration.
Question 6 again followed a similar design in both the pre-intervention test and the
post-intervention test. The learners were given the concentration and volume of two
solutions. Question 6(a) required learners to write a balanced chemical equation.
Learners we supposed to use simple analytical skills (level II) to write a balanced
chemical equation of reaction. Question 6(b) and 6(c) in the pre-intervention test are
like question 6(b) in the post-intervention test.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
74
In question 6(b) of the pre-intervention test, learners were required to calculate the
number of moles of H2SO4 in the given solution. They were supposed to change the
volume from cm3 to dm3, then use the formula c = 𝑛
𝑉 to calculate the concentration.
This is a simple two-step question that learners could have done easily. Question 6(c)
in the pre-intervention test required learners to calculate the number of moles of
NaOH. Both questions 6(b) and 6(c) were level II questions. Learners were supposed
to follow the same procedure as in 6(b); converting volume to dm3 and using the
formula c = 𝑛
𝑉 to calculate the concentration. For learners to answer question 6(d),
they needed to use the proportion of the number of moles of H2SO4 in relation to the
moles of NaOH on a balanced chemical equation in relation to the calculated
concentrations to find the limiting reactant. Question 6(e) required learners to calculate
the mass of water produced. They were supposed to identify the limiting reactant by
making sense of the definition of limiting reactant, then use ratios and the balanced
chemical equation of the reaction to calculate the numbers of moles of water produced.
After that, they would calculate the mass of water using the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀 .
Question 6(b) in the post-intervention test was like questions 6(b), 6(c) and 6(d) in the
pre-intervention test. It was, therefore, a multi-step question where learners would go
through all the steps just like in 6(b) of the pre-intervention test. Learners needed to
convert the volume to dm3 and then use the formula c = 𝑛
𝑉 to calculate the number of
moles of HCl and NaOH. They would then use the proportion of mole ratio of the
balanced equation of reaction to determine the excess reactant. Question 6(c) in the
post-intervention test required learners to calculate the mass of the water produced.
Learners were supposed to use mole ratios from a balanced chemical equation to
calculate the moles of water produced. Then they would use the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀 to
calculate the mass of water produced. This question was a level II question requiring
critical and analytical thinking skills to get to the answer.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
75
3.6.2.2 The interview schedules description
a) The interviews schedule for the teachers
The interview schedule for the teachers (Appendix 13) was open-ended to allow the
interviewee an opportunity to air their views openly. The questions ranged from easy
to complex ones. The teachers were interviewed in their office soon after the
intervention to gauge their experiences with POGIL before and during the intervention.
This included asking them about the advantages and disadvantages of POGIL based
on their personal experience with the teaching approach. The teachers were also
questioned on the perceptions of learners towards POGIL and the understanding,
reasoning, and general performance because of using POGIL. The teachers also
commented on the manner in which learners worked with regards to teamwork,
communication, management, problem-solving, and general participation. In addition,
they were asked whether they considered using POGIL in their classes going forward.
They also commented on the concerns they had regarding POGIL.
The interviews lasted just below ten minutes, and a copy of the interview schedule for
teachers is available in Appendix 13. Throughout the interview, the teachers were
asked to describe their perceptions in relation to the POGIL method, the learners’
attention and participation, and the expected outcomes. There were no pre-existing
codes for the interview since the teachers were expected to air their own views openly.
This appealed to me as an appropriate way to get in-depth data from the teachers.
b) The interview schedule for the learners
The interview schedule for the learners (see Appendix 14) was also open-ended. This
helped to avoid yes/no answers and allowed the learners to express themselves freely
and provide rich information. The learners were asked to describe their understanding
of POGIL as it was important to find out if they had already used POGIL in their
previous lessons. They were also asked how they thought POGIL might have
influenced their understanding, performance, reasoning, and interest in science. The
learners were then asked if they wished to use POGIL in other science topics, and if
they expected that the POGIL method would help them to achieve their goals in terms
of career choices in the future. The interview lasted less than ten minutes. The
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
76
questions in this interview also progressed from easy to complex. The questions
sought the learners’ perceptions of the POGIL method, their understanding of
stoichiometry as a result of the POGIL method, and their expected achievement in
science if they continue using POGIL. The open-ended interview appealed to me as a
method of getting rich data when participants express themselves openly.
3.6.2.3 Description of the lesson observation schedule
The lesson observation schedule was open-ended (Appendix 21). The observation
schedule aimed to observe the actions of the learners during the lessons and that of
the teachers as they taught. As for the learners, the observation schedule focused on
the excitement, cooperation, and communication in the group and with the teacher, as
well as participation. For the teachers, the observation looked at the teachers’ ability
to teach using POGIL. The teachers were observed on their awareness of the needs
of the learners during the lessons, their roles in facilitating the lessons, their response
in terms of excitement and communication with learners. The observation of teachers
and learners was necessary to determine if the intervention met the requirements of
POGIL or otherwise.
3.6.2.4 The description of the POGIL lesson plans
The POGIL lessons (Appendix 12) were developed by adapting existing POGIL
worksheets from the bank of worksheets on the POGIL website. The worksheets were
adapted in terms of language and the contexts of the scenarios. A complete activity in
POGIL is called a ‘model’ and for the purposes of this study, four models were used.
All the models started with a diagram or scenario which assisted learners in developing
mental models of the concept they are studying. These models were structured based
on the learning cycle described in Section 2.6.1. During the learning cycle (Lawson,
1988), learning occurs from exploration, invention to application of concepts.
Model 1 was easy, with simple real-life examples which learners were familiar with
and able to comprehend easily. The examples were designed to remind learners of
what they already know that relates to the new concept. Model 2 was the application
of concepts learnt in model 1. That application was again related to the concept limiting
reactant. Model 3 referred to the actual chemistry concepts. Similar to model 1 and 2,
this model was designed to progress from easy to more challenging. The model aims
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
77
to develop the concept of ‘limiting reactants’ in the real context of chemistry by having
a lot of activities for concept invention. Model 4 started with some examples of concept
invention and moving to concept application. At this stage, examination-type questions
were provided starting from the easy to the more challenging. At this stage, the
learners were applying the concept in real chemistry situation.
3.7 Data analysis
This section describes the data analysis process. Thematic analysis of themes used
in the current study are described by linking them to the conceptual framework of the
study. Description of themes was done in describing how themes were developed and
used in data collection using the pre-intervention tests, post-intervention tests, an
observation schedule, video recording, interview schedules for teachers and the group
interviews for learners.
3.7.1 Thematic analysis
Thematic analysis is the method that identifies and analyses the patterns in the data
(Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Thematic analysis reveals how data was analysed
and the assumptions used during data analysis. Inductive thematic analysis was used
in this study in coding data from lesson observations and the interviews of both the
teachers and the group interview of the learners. Deductive thematic analysis was
used to analyse qualitative data collected using the pre-intervention test and the post-
intervention test, and learners’ activities in the intervention.
During inductive thematic analysis, themes are allowed to emerge from the data
(Patton, 2002; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Thomas, 2006; Nieuwenhuis, 2011).
In this study, the semantic type of inductive approach was used to analyse interviews
and lesson observations. In the semantic approach, themes are identified superficially
without looking at anything beyond what is said or done (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark,
2006). The semantic approach was used to avoid making subjective judgements of
what the learner or teacher said or did. The semantic approach enhanced inter-coder
reliability when the second person codes the same interview transcripts or what
happened during lessons.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
78
During deductive thematic analysis, pre-existing themes are used to code the events
as they occurred (Patton, 2002; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Thomas, 2006;
Nieuwenhuis, 2011). In the pre-intervention test and the post-intervention test, codes
were designed based on the level of complexity of the question. Each answer was
coded according to how the answer was written in relation to the codes as described
in Section 3.6. For the intervention learners’ activities were coded based on their
actions in relation to the ICAP framework. Themes are imposed on the data and the
observed results are analysed (Patton, 2002; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006;
Thomas, 2006; Nieuwenhuis, 2011)
The coding of all data was done with the aid of ATLAS.ti software for qualitative data
analysis. This made coding much easier, and the files are still available for further
reference. My supervisor coded the same results using the same semantic thematic
approach to ascertain reliability of the coding system. After discussing the two sets of
results it was agreed that there were no significant differences.
Learners’ work in the pre-intervention test and the post-intervention test was coded
according to the level of difficulty of the question and the extent to which the learner
answered the question. The answers were classified as novice, elementary,
intermediate, competent, or advanced with increasing level of complexity. Where a
response was not given, it was coded as a novice idea. An answer was coded as
elementary when correct definitions or a single step calculation had minor errors. The
intermediate code was used for balancing equation of reaction or appropriately
performing a two-step calculation. A competent code was used for three-step
calculations where minor errors occurred. The advanced code was used for multi-step
calculations where no error occurred (see Table 3.6).
The learners’ activities during the intervention were coded following the ICAPD
framework which stand for the Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive and
Disengaged. The ICAPD framework was used to identify the engagement and
reasoning of the learners during their discussions. More detail on the ICAPD is given
in Section 2.7.
The interviews for teachers and learners were coded according to their responses to
the questions. The observations of the lessons were coded according to the checklist
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
79
(Appendix 21) of the activities done by the learners and the teachers during the
intervention.
3.7.2 Data analysis of learners’ activities during the intervention
Data collected during the POGIL lessons was analysed following the ICAP framework
(Chi, 2011; Chi, et al., 2018; Chi, 2009) discussed in chapter 2. Learners’ activities
during the lessons were video recorded by focusing on the work written down and
recording the learners’ discussions. The faces of the learners were intentionally not
recorded for ethical reasons. The ICAP framework described in Section 2.7 is
composed of the interactive, constructive, active, and passive as shown by the actions
of the learners. These observable behaviours show the level of engagement of the
learners. During each level of engagement, learners display certain actions which
reflect that level of engagement. During the data analysis such actions were coded to
identify the levels of engagement during the intervention and assess the extent of the
inquiry component of the intervention. Figure 2.7 briefly describes the actions on each
level of engagement as used in the current study (Chi, et al., 2018).
For the purposes of the study, the POGIL intervention which was video recorded was
coded following the guidelines of the ICAP framework to ascertain the active learning
therein. Table 3.5 shows the codes that were used and the corresponding activities
that reflected the components of the ICAP framework. I have considered adding
“disengaged” to classify the moment when learners were off task. So that the ICAP
framework may look modified to ICAPD. These codes were loaded into ATLAS.ti,
software for qualitative data analysis and coded accordingly.
Table 3:5
Codes used in video analysis (Chi, et al., 2018)
I C A P D
Code group
Interactive Constructive Active Passive Disengaged
Codes Argue, justify,
elaborate, explain,
agreement
Explain, elaborate,
reason, predict,
brainstorm
Underline, highlight,
copy, repeat, match
Look-on, gaze, read,
listen, observe
Off-task, sleeping, playing,
searching other things
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
80
3.7.3 Data analysis of the pre-intervention test and the post-
intervention test
The requirements of the department of basic education of South Africa focuses on four
levels of difficulty. These levels are based on Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive domain
(Section 2.2). The current study relied on the classification of questions by the
Department of Basic Education. The coding of the learners’ responses was also based
on the classification level of questions (see Tables 3.3 and 3.4). Other tools for
problem-solving techniques were looked at.
The study by Selvaratnam and Fraser (1982) was identified as being close but not
close enough to use as the basis of the marking guidelines. All learners’ work was
classified as novice, elementary, intermediate, competent, or advanced (Table 3.6)
depending on the extent of reasoning the learner demonstrated.
Responses were classified as novice when a learner did not show a formula, or there
was no response or there was a formula without substitution, or something was wrong
with the definition. The Department of Education’s assessment guidelines states that
marks are allocated to formula, substitution, and answer; one mark for each. However,
no mark is allocated to a formula if no substitution was done. A learner who gives the
correct formula without substitution was not awarded any mark.
The elementary response was awarded to a correct definition or single-step
identification of correct formula followed by appropriate substitution and correct
answer. A response could be classified as elementary for a level I, level II, level III, or
level IV question. For the definition, only memory recall was needed to get this award.
Only a correct definition was awarded as an elementary response. If there was
anything wrong with the definition, then it was assigned as novice. Similarly, the
Department of Education awards full marks for a correct definition and no mark if
anything on the definition is incorrect.
A response was classified as intermediate when there was a maximum of two steps
followed and the answer was correct. An appropriate ratio may be used to link up the
two formulae in a level II, level III, or level IV question. An answer was identified as
competent when at least three steps were correctly followed, and the stages were
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
81
linked with appropriate ratios where necessary. At least three formulae were used in
a competent response to a level III or level IV question. A response was classified as
advanced when multi-step calculations to a level IV question were done and all the
related mathematical calculations, such as ratio, were properly recorded and correct.
A response to a level I question can either be elementary if the one step is correct or
novice if nothing is correct, while a response to a level II question can be intermediate
if two steps are correct, elementary if one step is correct or novice if nothing is correct.
A response to a level III question can be competent if three steps are correct,
intermediate if two steps are correct, elementary if one step is correct or novice when
nothing is correct. Furthermore, a response to a level IV question can be advanced
when everything is correct, competent if three steps are correct, intermediate if two
steps are correct, elementary if one step is correct or novice if nothing is correct. Table
3.6 shows a summary of the classification of the learners’ responses.
Table 3:6
Codes used in analysis of pre-intervention test and post-intervention test.
Response level
Bloom’s taxonomy
Description
Novice idea - No response provided. No formula chosen or no substitution done. No recall of definition.
Elementary I Recall of definition. Or single-step calculation. Reasoning involves selecting appropriate formula, appropriate substitution, and getting correct answer.
Intermediate II Solution of a question through a maximum of two steps. Reasoning involves selection of appropriate formulae, correct substitution done in the correct formula. Correct use of relevant ratios to link the formulae. Answer to a maximum of two-step question is correct.
Competent III Solution is found through a maximum of three steps. Reasoning involves selecting correct formulae, substitutions, linking by use of ratio.
Advanced IV Reasoning is involved in the selection and use of more than three formulae. Appropriate substitution and solving is done by linking the formulae with appropriate ratios.
In the Selvaratnam and Frazer (1982) model, the first stage does not fit with how the
Department of Basic Education recommends the assessment of learners’ work.
Identification of the unknown and known quantities is not examinable according to the
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
82
DBE. The second stage of selecting the formula correspond with the elementary
response. Therefore, stages 1 and 2 will have been the elementary level. The third
level of deriving the formula is not examinable according to the department’s
guidelines. The learners are only supposed to substitute in the formula as it is, to be
awarded marks for substitution. The fifth stage is also not examined by the Department
of Basic Education.
According to Selvaratnam and Frazer’s (1982) model for problem-solving, the stages
indicate the reasoning taken by a learner in the process of solving the problem. The
identification of the known and the unknown quantities is a basic step required for
problem-solving. A learner may not be able to solve a problem before they can identify
the known and the unknown variables from the available data. The learner would have
reasoned that “this information is what I have, and that is what I do not have”.
Sometimes the learner goes further, reasoning that the quantities given are not in the
appropriate units and may have to change those quantities to the appropriate units
using the suitable ratio. This again is reasoning implied in the identification of the
known and the unknown quantities. Table 3.7 shows the stages in the problem-solving
model by Selvaratnam and Frazer (1982).
Table 3:7
Stages in the Selvaratnam and Frazer (1982) problem-solving model
Stage Learner’s activities
1. Clarify and define problem
Learner identifies the unknown and the known. Identifies additional information required.
2. Select the formula Identifies physical quantities available in the given data. Establish relationship between known and unknown quantities.
3. Derive the key formula for the calculation
Breaks down the question into sub questions. Relate each data using formulae. Clarifies relationships and all necessary information.
4. Collect data and calculate
Solve the problem numerically using the formulae. Check the units.
5. Review and learn from the solution
Check if problem was correctly solved. Check if the answer is correct.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
83
In the second stage, which is the selection of the formula or formulae, the learner must
check on the provided formula sheet to get the appropriate formula to use. The
Department of Basic Education provides a formulae sheet attached to the examination
paper. In the process, the learner must use reason to determine which formula to use.
The learner matches the available quantities to the given formulae to get a suitable
formula to solve the problem. This is the analysis and application stage where the
learner selects a formula that will appropriately work to solve the problem.
The third stage of the model is the breakdown of the question into sub-questions. This
applies in the case of multi-step calculations where the learner must select all the
formulae that they will use in succession. They also must reason on the sequence of
steps to follow up to the final answer. They must reason on how to link all the formulae
from one step to another either by using an answer from the previous step or by linking
it with an appropriate ratio. The third stage corresponds to the evaluation and
synthesis in Bloom’s taxonomy.
The classification of different levels of questions by the DoBE does not spell out some
of the steps indicated in the problem-solving models. The Department emphasizes the
formula, substitution, and answer. Problem-solving is, however, implied in the levels
of the questions. A similar problem-solving model by Ashmore, Frazer, and Casey
(1979) was observed in the literature. Both models of problem-solving end with
evaluation, which is implied when a learner has finished calculating. The learner
analyses the final answer if it makes sense and if they have successfully solved the
problem (Ashmore, Frazer, & Casey, 1979; Selvaratnam & Frazer, 1982).
3.8 Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness refers to the credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability of a research study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Nieuwenhuis, 2011). It aims
to persuade the audience and self that the findings are worth taking into consideration.
The trustworthiness of a study demonstrates the truth value of a study, on how it can
be applied in other scenarios. It establishes the extent of the consistency of its
procedures and the neutrality of its findings (Nieuwenhuis, 2011; Shenton, 2004).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
84
In this study, trustworthiness was established by triangulating data obtained through
the pre-intervention test, post-intervention test, intervention, lesson observations, and
the interviews to establish the links between the different sources of data. The
reasoning of the learners during the intervention and the post-intervention test, as well
as their perceptions in the interview, were used to establish the consistency of the
findings after the intervention. The pre-intervention test results and the interview for
the learners was used to establish the initial reasoning the learners had before the
intervention. Trustworthiness was also ascertained by having an independent coder
use the same coding scheme to code the tests and the intervention data to identify
reasoning and engagement, respectively.
Some elements of trustworthiness of this study are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
3.8.1 Credibility
According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), the confidence in the truth delivered on the
intended findings spells out the credibility of a study. In this study, previous
examination type questions were adapted in the construction of the pre-intervention
test and post-intervention test. The tests were carefully designed with reference to the
curriculum expectations for Grade 11 stoichiometry (Department of Basic Education
[DoBE NCS-CAPS], 2012). Taking cognizance of such parameters ensured that the
learners were able to tackle normal examination questions in the same topic
(Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report, 2019). Hence, the tests measured
what they were intended to measure according to the Department of Basic Education’s
expectations. The test instruments were assessed by an experienced chemistry
lecturer in the science education field at a university, as well as four experienced high
school teachers to ascertain the extent to which they would enable credible data
collection. The four teachers and the lecturer provided feedback on the ability of the
instruments in assessing the reasoning of learners in their calculations. A pilot study
was done to test the pre-intervention test and post-intervention tests at one school to
24 learners not participating in the main study. This was done to ascertain if the test
assessed what it intended to while ensuring that the language was pitched at the level
of the target sample. The instruments were, therefore, deemed trustworthy for the
intended use (Nieuwenhuis, 2011).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
85
The POGIL intervention worksheets were adapted from POGIL worksheets available
on the POGIL website (Moog, 2020). These worksheets have been used successfully
in many countries and schools over a period of time and are deemed credible for use
in the current study.
3.8.2 Dependability of the data collection instruments
Dependability has to do with whether the results of a study are consistent with the data
collected (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This measure can be increased by investigator
triangulation. All written work for the pre-intervention test and post-intervention test
and video recording of the lessons were loaded into ATLAS.ti for qualitative data
analysis coding and categorizing. One of my supervisors used the same coding
scheme to code the tests and the video, as well as the transcribed interviews of both
learners and teachers. A discussion was done with the researcher on how he had
coded in comparison with how the supervisor had coded. This provided investigator
triangulation (Patton, 2002) by providing credible and multiple ways of observing data.
This increased the credibility of the coding scheme and the process used, reducing
primary investigator bias (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Thomas, 2006).
3.9 Crystallization
Crystallization uses various data collection techniques to allow the emergence of the
findings. The different data collection techniques represent the multiple dimensions of
a crystal which enables the credibility of the findings and improves trustworthiness of
the findings (Nieuwenhuis, 2011). In the current study, the pre-intervention test and
the post-intervention tests provided data about the learners’ reasoning before and after
the intervention, respectively. The data from the intervention provided information
about how the learners engaged and reasoned in completing the POGIL worksheet.
This data provided information about how learners reasoned in performing
calculations. The data therefore supported what was found in the post-intervention
test.
The interview of the learners enquired about their views on reasoning before and after
the intervention. The responses of the learners in the interviews provided data that
complemented data from the pre-intervention test, post-intervention test, and the video
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
86
recording. The interview of the teachers also provided information on how they
assessed the reasoning of the learners before and after the intervention. All the data
collection techniques worked in unison to provide information about learners’
reasoning in stoichiometry.
3.10 Ethical considerations
Before going for fieldwork, the researcher obtained permission from the University of
Pretoria to conduct research (Appendix 19). The next stage was seeking permission
from the Department of Basic Education (Appendix 20). Following this, I requested
permission from two high schools to carry out research with at least one physical
sciences teacher per school (Appendix 8). Consent was sought from two POGIL-
trained physical sciences teachers at these two schools (Appendix 9). The parents
and learners in the identified classes were requested to voluntarily give consent of
their participation in the study before the research commenced (Appendix 10). All the
learners in the two Grade 11 physical sciences classes were taught regardless of
giving consent, but the interviews and analysis of results was only done with the
learners who had given consent (Appendix 11). All data collection in the form of
observations and field notes during POGIL lessons, pre-intervention tests and post-
intervention tests and interviews for learners and for POGIL teachers was done
outside normal teaching time. This was done so that data could be collected over a
short period of time, to avoid the possibility of learners forgetting what they learned if
it occurred over a long period of time.
All participants’ identities were protected by using pseudonyms when collecting data
and reporting the findings of the study. The videos taken were only used for analysis
purposes and shall not be distributed or used in any other situations outside the
consent of the participants. The video recorders were set up above the scribe such
that only the work done by the group was recorded and not the faces of the learners.
This helped to ensure anonymity. The researcher undertook to submit all the data
collected to the university after analysis as it would remain the property of the
university, which would keep it in safe storage for a set period.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
87
3.11 Chapter Summary
During this study, various instruments were used to collect data before, during and
after the intervention. ATLAS.ti’s version 8 software programme was used for careful
coding and categorizing. The pre-intervention test provided information on the
learners’ initial reasoning in solving stoichiometry. The intervention provided
information about how learners engaged and reasoned while completing POGIL
worksheets. The post-intervention test provided information of the learners’ reasoning
after the intervention, and the interviews of both the teachers and the learners provided
information about their perceptions of the POGIL method and how the teachers felt
about the learners’ reasoning. The next chapter focusses on the results obtained using
the various methods of data collection described in chapter 3.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
88
4 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the presentation and discussion of the data collected using
the various instruments of data collection discussed in chapter three. I started by firstly
presenting the results and discussion of the pre-intervention test. This is followed by
the results from the post-intervention test. A brief comparison of the pre-intervention
test and the post-intervention test results then follows. This is followed by the
discussion of the pre-intervention test and post-intervention test results on the ratio
technique. The discussion of the pre-intervention test and post-intervention test results
follows thereafter. Next, the data collected during the intervention are presented
followed by a discussion thereof. The presentation of results ends with the report on
the interviews of both the teachers and the learners.
4.2 Results from the pre-intervention test
4.2.1 Results obtained for each item in the pre-intervention test
In the following paragraphs, I give examples of results obtained for each item in the
pre-intervention test. I briefly explain how each response was classified according to
the learners’ reasoning level. The classification of the responses was guided by the
cognitive levels prescribed by the DoBE (see Tables 3.2 and 3.3) regarding the codes
assigned to each question (see Table 3.6). This coding was also developed taking into
consideration the level of complexity of each question in the test (see Tables 3.2 and
3.3 showing the levels of complexity of the questions in the pre-intervention test and
post-intervention test, respectively).
4.2.1.1 Question 1
Learners’ execution of this level I question in the pre-intervention test was poorly done.
The question required learners to identify a suitable formula from the provided formula
sheet. This single-step calculation required learners to have the knowledge of the
formula needed and use the appropriate substitution to calculate the answer. Most
learners did not do well as they made various errors such as wrong substitution, wrong
formulae, not responding and wrong calculations, among others.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
89
Novice response to question 1
Some learners who demonstrated novice responses used a correct formula and a
wrong substitution to get a wrong answer. The learners demonstrated novice ideas
regarding of the use of the formula and the meaning of each symbol in the formula.
Such work was classified as novice response since this was a level I question with a
single step. Figure 4.1 shows an example of a novice response in the pre-intervention
test to question 1.
Figure 4:1
Novice response to question 1
Another Novice response to question 1
Some learners attempted to do the calculations using a wrong formula. As a result,
their answers ended up being incorrect. An example of such a novice response to
question 1 is shown in figure 4.2.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
90
Figure 4:2
Novice response to question 1
Elementary response to question 1
Some learners used the correct formula and correct substitution got the correct
answer. The learner used an incorrect unit, but that fault was overlooked during the
assessment. Such responses were classified as elementary. Figure 4.3 shows an
example of an elementary response to question 1.
Figure 4:3
Elementary responses to question 1.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
91
4.2.1.2 Question 2
Question 2 was a level III question which needed three-step calculation. The question
required analysis, evaluation, synthesis, and application on top of the basic cognitive
domains of knowledge and understanding.
Novice response to question 2
Some of the learners who had novice ideas of solving the question left blanks as
shown in Figure 4.4 below.
Figure 4:4
Novice response to question 2
Yet, some learners did wrong substitution on the correct formula. Such learners ended
up getting the answer wrong because of incorrect substitution, as shown in Figure 4.5.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
92
Figure 4:5
Novice response to question 2
Elementary response to question 2
Some learners with elementary knowledge could do only one step in this three-step
problem. For example, some learners calculated the relative molecular mass of the
compound but failed to use it further. Figure 4.6 is an example of an elementary
response to question 2.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
93
Figure 4:6
Elementary response to question 2
Intermediate response to question 2
Some learners with intermediate knowledge calculated the relative molecular mass
and chose the correct formula and did the first calculation and the second calculation
correctly. Since the learner managed to do two steps, the work was coded as
intermediate. Figure 4.7 is an example of an intermediate response to question 2.
Figure 4:7
Intermediate response to question 2
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
94
Competent response to question 2
Some learners demonstrated competence in question 2 by performing all the steps
required to get the answer. An example of such response was when the learner used
a correct relative molecular formula, and all three steps were appropriately done.
Figure 4.8 is an example of a competent response to question 2.
Figure 4:8
Competent response to question 2
4.2.1.3 Question 3a
Question 3a was a level III question in the pre-intervention test. It required a three-
step calculation. This question produced the highest number of learners with
competent knowledge.
Competent response to question 3a
A learner with the competency to answer this question used the correct formula and
calculated the number of moles of CaO appropriately, then used the ratio technique to
calculate the equivalent number of moles of CO2. Thereafter, the learner used the
appropriate formula to calculate the volume of CO2. The learner did not make any
mistakes. The work was, therefore, classified as competent because the response
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
95
needed three steps in a level III question. An example of a competent response to
question 3a is shown in Figure 4.9.
Figure 4:9
Competent response to question 3a
Elementary response to question 3a
The learners with elementary knowledge managed to do one-step calculations. The
formula was correct, and so was substitution. But the learner failed to proceed past
the first step. An example of an elementary response to question 3a is shown in
figure 4.10.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
96
Figure 4:10
Elementary response to question 3a
Novice response to question 3a
Most learners in the sample had ‘novice ideas’ of how to answer the question. Some
of the learners used wrong formula and incorrect substitution to get wrong answers.
An example of such a novice response to question 3a is shown in figure 4.11.
Figure 4:11
Novice response to question 3a
Other learners with novice ideas towards solving questions left blank spaces without
further attempts to solve the question. The assumption here is that such learners did
not have a clue where to start solving the problem. Figure 4.12 shows another novice
response to question 3a.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
97
Figure 4:12
Novice response to question 3a
4.2.1.4 Question 3b
This was a level II question in which learners were supposed to use the mole ratio of
CuO and H2 on the balanced equation of reaction to find the equivalent number of
moles of H2. Then the learners were required to use the formula n = 𝑉
𝑉𝑚 to find the
volume of H2 produced.
Novice response to question 3b
Some learners with ‘novice responses’ to using the mole ratio used an incorrect
formula in the calculation. Figure 4.13 shows an example of a novice response to
question 3b.
Figure 4:13
Novice response to question 3b
Most of the learners showed that they had novice ideas of how to answer the question
by leaving it blank. An example of a novice response where learners left blanks is
shown in figure 4.14.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
98
Figure 4:14
Novice response to question 3b
Elementary response to question 3b
Some learners with elementary knowledge used the correct formula but did wrong
substitution. The number of moles is incorrect, but they appropriately used the value
in the calculation to get an inappropriate answer. Example of elementary response to
question 3b is shown in figure 4.15.
Figure 4:15
Elementary response to question 3b
Intermediate response to question 3b
Other learners had intermediate knowledge and used the correct ratio and formula
and got the appropriate answer to the question. The learner did correct conversion of
units to cubic decimetres and used correct formula, substituted appropriately, and got
the appropriate answer. Figure 4.16 shows intermediate response to question 3b.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
99
Figure 4:16
Intermediate response to question 3b
4.2.1.5 Question 4a
This was a level I question that required learners to recall and state the definition of
limiting reactant. Most of the learners failed to state the correct definition of limiting
reactant.
Novice response to question 4a
Some of these learners left blanks showing that they did not have an idea of how to
solve the problem. Example of novice response to question 4a is shown in figure 4.17.
Figure 4:17
Novice response to question 4a
Other learners had completely wrong definitions of limiting reactant such as the one
shown in figure 4.18.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
100
Figure 4:18
Novice response to question 4a
Elementary response to question 4a
Very few learners however appropriately stated the definition of a limiting reactant.
Such work was classified as elementary knowledge since only recall was needed to
answer the question completely. Example of elementary response in question 4a is
shown in figure 4.19.
Figure 4:19
Elementary response to question 4a
4.2.1.6 Question 4b
This was a level IV question where learners were supposed to solve the problem using
a multi-step calculation. The learners were supposed to calculate the number of moles
of NO and O2. After that, they were supposed to use the mole ratio as shown from a
balanced chemical equation to calculate the equivalent number of moles required to
react with the calculated moles. This would have led them to identify the limiting
reactant. Then they were supposed to use the number of moles of the limiting reactant
to calculate the equivalent number of moles of NO2. They were then expected to use
the correct formula to calculate the mass of NO2 produced. Most of the learners in the
sample demonstrated novice ideas in attempting to answer this question.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
101
Novice response to question 4b
Some of these learners failed to calculate the molecular mass to begin with. They did
not proceed with calculation. Figure 4.20 shows a novice response to question 4b.
Figure 4:20
Novice response to question 4b
Other learners failed to use appropriate formula or failed to use the formula
appropriately. An example of such novice response is shown in figure 4.21.
Figure 4:21
Novice response to question 4b
Some learners left the question completely blank. They did not attempt to respond and
therefore their work was classified as a novice idea. Figure 4.22 shows an example of
such novice response to question 4b.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
102
Figure 4:22
Novice response to question 4b
Elementary response to question 4b
Learners with elementary knowledge managed to calculate relative molecular mass
but failed to proceed to the use the next formula. An example of an elementary
response to question 4b is shown in figure 4.23.
Figure 4:23
Elementary response to question 4b
Intermediate response to question 4b
Other learners with intermediate knowledge appropriately calculated the relative
molecular mass. They used the first formula and appropriately calculated both number
of moles. The learners however, added up the number of moles instead of identifying
the limiting reactant using those calculated moles. The learners used the total number
of moles to calculate the mass produced. The mass is incorrect because of where the
learner added the number of moles. An example of an intermediate response to
question 4b is shown in figure 4.24.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
103
Figure 4:24
Intermediate response to question 4b
Competent response to question 4b
From the sample there was only 1 competent response. The learner did all the other
steps appropriately. The only mistake made by the learner was the wrong relative
molecular mass used in the first part of the calculation. The competent response done
by the learner is shown in figure 4.25.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
105
4.2.1.7 Question 5
This was a level IV question which required multi-step calculations. There was no
learner in the sample who demonstrated advanced knowledge of answering this
question.
Competent response to question 5
There were competent learners who had minor errors. These learners appropriately
converted the units to cubic decimetres and used the correct formula to appropriately
calculate the concentration of each substance. They, however, did not calculate the
concentration of the ions as required by the question. Their answer is, therefore,
incomplete. Figure 4.26 is an example of a competent response to question 5.
Figure 4:26
Competent response to question 5
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
106
Intermediate response to question 5
The sample had 14 learners showing intermediate knowledge in answering question
5. For example, learners appropriately calculated the number of moles for each
substance and the concentration for each. However, they did not proceed to calculate
the concentration of moles by using ratios. As such, the learner did not complete the
calculation. An example of an intermediate response to question 5 is shown in figure
4.27.
Figure 4:27
Intermediate response to question 5
Elementary response to question 5
Another 14 learners in the sample had elementary knowledge to answer question 5.
They could not calculate the relative molecular mass but used the correct formula to
calculate the number of moles. An example of an elementary response to question 5
is shown in figure 4.28.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
107
Figure 4:28
Elementary response to question 5
Novice response to question 5
Most of the learners had novice ideas in attempting to answer question 5. The
calculation done to the response below has nothing to do with what was expected in
the question. The formula does not work to respond to this question. An example of a
novice response to question 5 is shown in figure 4.29.
Figure 4:29
Novice response to question 5
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
108
4.2.1.8 Question 6a
Question 6a was a level II question that required learners to balance an equation of a
chemical reaction. Only a few learners in the sample demonstrated intermediate
knowledge to balance the equation of a chemical reaction.
Intermediate response to question 6a
The learners with intermediate knowledge made sure that the number of atoms on the
left balances their number on the right. An example of intermediate response to
question 6a is shown in figure 4.30.
Figure 4:30
Intermediate response to question 6a
Elementary response to question 6a
In the sample, a few learners had elementary knowledge to balance the equation of
the reaction. The elementary learners knew the formula of the reactants and products
but failed to balance the numbers of atoms. This learner had the correct idea of the
formulae of reactants and products. The learner, however, made a slight mistake on
the formula of sodium sulphate. He/she tried to balance but did not do it well, possibly
because of the wrong formula of sodium sulphate. Figure 4.31 shows an example of
an elementary response to question 6a.
Figure 4:31
Elementary response to question 6a
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
109
Novice response to question 6a
Most learners in the sample demonstrated novice ideas of how to balance an equation
of reaction. Some of them did not know the formula of the products or left blank spaces
or never attempted to answer. Figure 4.32 shows and example of novice response to
question 6a.
Figure 4:32
Novice response to question 6a
Still, some learners with novice ideas for answering question 6a made varied attempts
to solve the question but failed. In the example below, the learner did not know the
formula of the products of the reaction. Figure 4.33 shows another example of a novice
response to question 6a.
Figure 4:33
Another Novice response to question 6a
Other learners with novice ideas for answering question 6a managed to write only the
formula of the reactants but no products. Such learners may have thought that they
already wrote a balanced equation of reaction by so doing. Further investigation is
required to ascertain the meaning of the answer indicated to figure 4.34.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
110
Figure 4:34
Novice response to question 6a
4.2.1.9 Question 6b
This was a level I question which required learners to convert cubic centimetres to
decimetres and then use one formula c = 𝑛
𝑉 to substitute and find the answer. Very
few learners in the sample demonstrated intermediate knowledge to answer the
question appropriately.
Elementary response to question 6b
An example of work done by such learners is shown in figure 4.35. The learner used
the correct formula, correct conversion of units to cubic decimetres, correct
substitution and got the appropriate answer.
Figure 4:35
Elementary response to question 6b
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
111
Novice response to question 6b
A total of 76 learners had novice ideas for answering this question. Such learners tried
to calculate the relative molecular mass of sulphuric acid but failed to get the
appropriate answer. Figure 4.36 is an example of a novice response to question 6b.
Figure 4:36
Novice response to question 6b
4.2.1.10 Question 6c
Just like question 6b, this was a level I question which required learners to convert
cubic centimetres to cubic decimetres and then use one formula c = 𝑛
𝑉 to substitute
and find the answer.
Elementary response to question 6c
A few learners demonstrated elementary knowledge to answer the question
appropriately. The learner whose work is shown in figure 4.37 converted the volume
to cubic decimetres and appropriately used the formula to calculate the number of
moles.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
112
Figure 4:37
Elementary response in question 6c
Novice response in question 6c
Most of the learners demonstrated novice ideas to answer question 6c. The learner in
the example below seems to be adding the atomic numbers and what results, the
learner determines to be the number of moles. Figure 4.38 is an example of a novice
response to question 6c.
Figure 4:38
Novice response to question 6c
Other learners with novice ideas used wrong formulae and wrong substitutions to
calculate the number of moles. Figure 4.39 shows another example of novice
response to question 6c.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
113
Figure 4:39
Novice response to question 6c
Still other learners with novice ideas left empty blanks on this question. Another
example of a novice response by leaving a blank space is shown in figure 4.40.
Figure 4:40
Novice response to question 6c
4.2.1.11 Question 6d
This was a level II question in which the concept of ratio was required to appropriately
identify the excess substance. No learner demonstrated intermediate knowledge to
answer this question. A few learners demonstrated elementary knowledge to answer
question 6d.
Elementary response to question 6d
A few learners demonstrated elementary knowledge. Such learners failed to use ratios
properly. The learner wrote only the appropriate answer without showing the
calculation. It is not clear whether the learner guessed the answer or had correct idea
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
114
to answer the question. An example of an elementary response in question 6d is in
figure 4.41.
Figure 4:41
Elementary response to question 6d
Novice response to question 6d
Most of the learners demonstrated novice ideas in answering question 6d. This was
mainly because of the failure to use the ratio technique. An example of a novice
response to question 6d is shown in figure 4.42 below. The learner in the example
showed no calculation and the answer was wrong. It is also not clear whether the
learners had used ratios or not. If the learner used incorrect ratios, then they were also
scored novice.
Figure 4:42
Novice response to question 6d
Other learners, as in the example in figure 4.43, incorrectly responded that both
substances had the same number of moles.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
115
Figure 4:43
Novice response to question 6d
4.2.1.12 Question 6e
This was a level II question which included ratio analysis. The learners were supposed
to use the ratio technique with the number of moles of the limiting reactant to find the
number of moles of H2O produced. Then they had to use the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀 to find
the mass of water produced. There were two steps needed to solve the question. Only
three learners demonstrated intermediate knowledge when answering the question.
Intermediate response to question 6e
An example of a learner with intermediate response to question 6e used the wrong
ratio and used an incorrect number of moles. However, the learner used the correct
formula, did the correct substitution but got the wrong answer because they had
correctly used the previous answer in the current question. The work was classified as
intermediate since all the steps were correctly done. Figure 4.44 shows an example
of intermediate response to question 6e.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
116
Figure 4:44
Intermediate response to question 6e
Elementary response to question 6e
A learner showing elementary knowledge to answer the question used the correct
substitution on the correct formula. An example of an elementary response to question
6e is shown in figure 4.45.
Figure 4:45
Elementary response to question 6e
Novice response to question 6e
Some learners left question 6e unanswered. This work was classified as a novice
response. An example of such novice response is shown in figure 4.46.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
117
Figure 4:46
Novice response to question 6e
4.2.2 Results of the pre-intervention test data per participating
school
The learners in both schools had comparable conceptual understanding and
reasoning of stoichiometry in the pre-intervention test. The results from the coding for
both classes in pre-intervention test suggest that most learners had novice ideas about
stoichiometry.
4.2.2.1 School A pre-intervention test results
Analysis of the results of the pre-intervention test in school A indicate that there were
no advanced responses in the pre-intervention test in the topic stoichiometry. Only
3,0% of responses in this class showed competent knowledge of the topic. 8,0% of
the responses showed intermediate knowledge and 31,4% demonstrated elementary
knowledge of stoichiometry. Most of the learners amounting to 57,6% of learners had
novice idea of the topic. The results suggest that the ideas of learners in this class are
mostly novice. More detail about the analysis of the pre-intervention test results at
school A is shown on the table 4.1.
Table 4:1
Pre-intervention test School A question analysis
Question Advanced Competent Intermediate Elementary Novice
1 0 0 0 18 4
2 0 2 2 2 16
3(a) 0 2 2 3 15
3(b) 0 0 2 6 14
4(a) 0 0 0 9 13
4(b) 0 1 2 4 15
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
118
5 0 3 5 4 10
6(a) 0 0 6 6 10
6(b) 0 0 0 13 9
6(c) 0 0 0 9 13
6(d) 0 0 1 6 15
6(e) 0 0 1 3 18
Total 0 8 21 83 152
Percentage 0.0% 3.0% 8.0% 31.4% 57.6%
4.2.2.2 School B pre-intervention test results
Analysis of the results of the pre-intervention test in school B indicate that none of the
learners had advanced knowledge of stoichiometry, and there were 0,6% who
demonstrated competent knowledge of the topic. A low 1% of the learners
demonstrated intermediate knowledge while 17% showed elementary knowledge of
stoichiometry. As much as 81,4% of learners in this class demonstrated novice ideas
of the topic. The results show that in school B, most learners had novice ideas about
the topic stoichiometry. More details of the pre-intervention test results in school B are
shown on the table 4.2.
Table 4:2
Pre-intervention test School B question analysis
Question Advanced Competent Intermediate Elementary Novice
1 0 0 0 17 9
2 0 0 0 5 21
3(a) 0 1 0 6 19
3(b) 0 0 1 3 22
4(a) 0 0 0 3 23
4(b) 0 0 1 3 22
5 0 1 1 5 19
6(a) 0 0 0 1 25
6(b) 0 0 0 2 24
6(c) 0 0 0 4 22
6(d) 0 0 0 2 24
6(e) 0 0 0 2 24
Total 0 2 3 53 254
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
119
Percentage 0.0% 0.6% 1.0% 17.0% 81.4%
4.2.2.3 Combined pre-intervention test results for both schools
The results from both classes suggest that the initial knowledge of the learners before
the intervention was comparable. No learner in the sample demonstrated advanced
knowledge of stoichiometry. The responses demonstrating competent knowledge
amounted to 1,7%, while 4,2% demonstrated intermediate knowledge. The
elementary responses constituted 23,6% while the novice ideas appeared in 70,5% of
the responses. Table 4.3 shows more details of the pre-intervention test results of both
school A and B.
Table 4:3
Pre-intervention test School A and B question analysis
Question Advanced Competent Intermediate Elementary Novice
1 0 0 0 35 13
2 0 2 2 7 37
3(a) 0 3 2 9 34
3(b) 0 0 3 9 36
4(a) 0 0 0 12 36
4(b) 0 1 3 7 37
5 0 4 6 9 29
6(a) 0 0 6 7 35
6(b) 0 0 0 15 33
6(c) 0 0 0 13 35
6(d) 0 0 1 8 39
6(e) 0 0 1 5 42
Total 0 10 24 136 406
Percentage 0.0% 1.7% 4.2% 23.6% 70.5%
4.2.3 Summary of the pre-intervention test results
The learners were taught stoichiometry the previous year in Grade 10. All the
calculations should have been familiar except for the concept ‘limiting reactant’. Most
of the learners demonstrated novice ideas of stoichiometry. In very few cases did the
learners demonstrate elementary knowledge associated with only single-step
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
120
calculations. This suggests that the learners’ reasoning before the intervention was
extremely poor. The learners demonstrated that they had difficulties in solving high-
order complex questions. Their understanding seemed to have been low-order
thinking. This was surprising since they were taught the same topic before and used
the same formulae. They could not select a suitable formula from the provided list of
formulae. It appears as if most of the learners had forgotten most concepts.
4.3 Results from the post-intervention test
4.3.1 Results obtained for each item in the post-intervention test
In the following sections, I give analysis of responses to each question according to
the cognitive levels displayed by the learners as inferred from their test responses. I
provide an example of a learner response per question in the test and show how it
was coded as either novice, elementary, intermediate, competent, or advanced.
4.3.1.1 Question 1
This was a level I question. Learners were supposed to find the correct formula,
substitute appropriately, and get the correct answer. This was a single-step
calculation.
Novice response to question 1
The learner responded by only calculating the atomic mass of magnesium, which need
not have been calculated. The learner did nothing else. So, the learner had a novice
idea of how to answer the question. Figure 4.47 shows an example of a novice
response to question 1.
Figure 4:47
Novice response to question 1
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
121
Elementary response to question 1
The learner used the correct formula, did the correct substitution, and got the
appropriate answer. They did not write the units, but it was acceptable that they found
the mass of the substance. Figure 4.48 shows an elementary response to question 1
in the post-intervention test.
Figure 4:48
Elementary response to question 1
4.3.1.2 Question 2
This was a level III question. It required the learners to calculate the relative molecular
mass of N2O4 and the use the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀. The learners were then supposed to
find the number of moles of the N2O4. They then had to use the mole ratio of atoms in
the compound to find the number moles of oxygen atoms.
Competent response to question 2
The learner used the correct formula and calculated the correct number of moles of
N2O4. The learner proceeded to appropriately use ratio to calculate the equivalent
number of moles of O atoms. This work was classified as competent because the
learner correctly followed all the steps in this level III question. Figure 4.49 shows an
advanced response to question 2.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
122
Figure 4:49
Competent response in question 2
Intermediate response to question 2
The learner with intermediate knowledge on question 2 used the correct formula and
correct substitution to calculate the correct number of moles of N2O4. They however,
used a wrong ratio to calculate the equivalent number of moles of O atoms. As a result,
their answer is wrong. This work was classified as intermediate because the learner
demonstrated correct knowledge but made a small mistake after performing at least
two steps. An example of an intermediate response to question 2 is shown in figure
4.50.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
123
Figure 4:50
Intermediate response to question 2
Elementary response to question 2
The learner in this case managed to use the correct formula to calculate the correct
number of moles of N2O4, but just ended there and never proceeded with the
calculation. Such work was classified as elementary because it appears the learner
did not have an idea how to proceed with the calculation. Figure 4.51 shows an
example of an elementary response to question 2.
Figure 4:51
Elementary response to question 2
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
124
Novice response in question 2
Learners showed novice knowledge in this question when they subtracted the masses
of the two substances but failed to use it in the equation. The work was classified as
a novice idea because the learner failed to do any single correct calculation. Figure
4.52 is an example of a novice response to question 2.
Figure 4:52
Novice response to question 2
4.3.1.3 Question 3a
This was a level III question which had to be solved following three-step calculations.
The learners were supposed to use the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀 to find the number of moles of
CaO. They were then supposed to use the mole ratio of CaO: CO2 of 1: 1 to find the
equivalent number of moles of CO2. Then they were supposed to use the formula n =
𝑉
𝑉𝑚 to calculate the volume of CO2 produced.
Competent response to question 3a
The learner with competent knowledge to answer this question used the correct
formula and calculated the number of moles of CaO appropriately. They then used the
ratio technique appropriately to calculate the equivalent number of moles of CO2, after
which the learner used the formula to appropriately calculate the volume of CO2. The
learner did not make any mistakes. As such, the work was classified as competent
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
125
because it was a response to a level III question. Figure 4.53 shows an example of a
competent response to question 3a.
Figure 4:53
Competent response to question 3a
Intermediate response in question 3a
The learner with an intermediate response in question 3a used the correct formula but
did a wrong substitution of the relative molecular mass. The number of moles of CaO
which they found was therefore incorrect. But they appropriately used it to calculate
the number of moles of CO2 and then the volume of CO2. The response is classified
as intermediate because the learner managed to correctly use two steps in the
calculation though the value used was initially wrongly calculated. An example of an
intermediate response to question 3a is shown in figure 4.54.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
126
Figure 4:54
Intermediate response to question 3a
Elementary response to question 3a
The learner with elementary knowledge calculated the correct relative molecular mass
and the correct number of moles of CaO. The learner however, failed to use the
formula to calculate the volume of CO2. The answer was, therefore, coded as
elementary because the learner correctly did a one-step calculation. An example of an
elementary response to question 3a is shown in figure 4.55.
Figure 4:55
Elementary response to question 3a
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
127
Novice response in question 3a
The learner with a novice idea tried to use the wrong formula but never managed to
substitute. The learner’s answer was coded as a novice idea because they used a
formula not related to the question. An example of a novice response to question 3a
is shown in figure 4.56.
Figure 4:56
Novice idea to answer question 3a.
4.3.1.4 Question 3b
This was a level II question. Learners were required to use the mole ratio of CaO:
CaCO3 which was 1:1 to calculate the equivalent number of moles of CaCO3. The
learners then were supposed to use the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀 to calculate the mass of CaCO3
produced.
Intermediate response to question 3b
The learner with an intermediate response used the correct ratio and calculated the
equivalent number of moles of CaCO3. They then appropriately used the formula to
calculate the mass of CaCO3 produced. The learner did not make any mistake in this
level II question, and hence their work was classified as intermediate. An example of
an intermediate response to question 3b is shown in figure 4.57.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
128
Figure 4:57
Intermediate response to question 3b
Elementary response to question 3b
This elementary response in question 3b shows the learner using the correct ratio to
calculate the equivalent number of moles of CaCO3. The learner then used the correct
formula to calculate the mass of CaCO3. The response was classified as elementary
because the learner only managed to do one complete and correct step in calculation.
An example of an elementary response to this question is shown in figure 4.58.
Figure 4:58
Elementary response to question 3b
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
129
Novice response to question 3b
The learner with novice ideas did not attempt to answer but left a blank space. It was
assumed that they did not know what to do. An example of a novice response to this
question is shown in figure 4.59.
Figure 4:59
Novice idea response to question 3b
4.3.1.5 Question 4a
This was a level I question where learners were required to define the term ‘limiting
reactant’. It only wanted learners to state what they remembered about limiting
reactant.
Elementary response to question 3b
The learner gave a correct definition of limiting reactant. The work was classified as
elementary because the learner had all the key words needed in the definition. An
example of elementary response to this question is shown in figure 4.60.
Figure 4:60
Elementary response in question 4a
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
130
Novice response in question 4a
A learner with novice ideas to this question failed to define a limiting reactant. Some
learners just said something meaningless or left a blank space. An example of novice
response to this question is shown in figure 4.61.
Figure 4:61
Novice response to question 4a
4.3.1.6 Question 4b
This was a level IV question solved through multi-step calculations. The learners were
supposed to calculate the number of moles of oxygen and those of hydrogen. They
were then supposed to use the mole ratio from a balanced equation of reaction to
identify the limiting reactant. Afterwards they were supposed to use the number of
moles of the limiting reactant to calculate the mass of water produced.
Advanced response in question 4b
A learner with advanced knowledge of solving question 4b used the correct formula,
correct substitution, and appropriate answer for the first step which was the number of
moles of O2. The learner then used the correct ratio of 1:2 to find the equivalent
number of moles of water according to the balanced chemical equation. The learner
then appropriately selected the second formula, substituted appropriately, and got the
appropriate answer of the mass of water. The learner did not make any mistake in the
whole calculation. The learner however skipped the stage of calculating the number
of moles of H2 and therefore did not compare the number of moles of H2 and O2 to find
the limiting reactant. The learner however, used the correct number of moles of limiting
reactant. We therefore assumed that the learner may have done a separate calculation
and determined the limiting reactant. An example of advanced response to this
question is shown in figure 4.62.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
131
Figure 4:62
Advanced response to question 4b
Competent response in question 4b
A competent learner used the correct formula and correct substitution and got the
appropriate answer for the first step. This learner correctly calculated the number of
moles of H2. The learner however, used an incorrect ratio to calculate the equivalent
number of moles of H2O. But the learner chose the correct formula, did the correct
substitution, and got the appropriate answer after positive marking. The learner’s work
was classified as competent based on the fact they only made one mistake when using
ratio. An example of competent response to this question is shown in figure 4.63.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
132
Figure 4:63
Competent response to question 4b
Intermediate response to question 4b
The learner in this example used the correct formula, appropriately substituted, and
got the correct number of moles of H2. The learner, however, did not calculate the
number of moles of O2. They did not identify the correct limiting reactant, which was
O2. The learner used the number of moles of H2 which was the excess reactant but
used the correct ratio to find the equivalent number of moles of H2O. The final answer
for the mass of H2O was correct by positive marking. The work was classified as
intermediate because the learner made a conceptual error of using the excess
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
133
reactant in further calculation and did not calculate the number of moles of the limiting
reactant. An example of intermediate response to this question is shown in figure 4.64.
Figure 4:64
Intermediate response to question 4b
Elementary response to question 4b
The learner used the correct formula with the wrong substitution. The learner then
used a wrong formula but did correct substitution to get the inappropriate answer. The
work was classified as elementary, showing that the learner had an idea of how to
respond to the question. An example of elementary response to this question is shown
in figure 4.65.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
134
Figure 4:65
Elementary response to question 4b
Novice response to question 4b
This learner left the question unanswered, meaning they did not have an idea of how
to answer it. The response was therefore classified as a novice idea. An example of a
novice response to this question 4b is shown in figure 4.66.
Figure 4:66
Novice response in question 4b
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
135
4.3.1.7 Question 5
This question was a level IV question which required multi-step calculations of the
concentrations of two substances and that of their respective ions. The ratio technique
was necessary in this calculation. After this, the learners compared the concentrations.
Advanced response in question 5
The learner used the correct formula and correct substitution to calculate the
concentrations of both substances. After that, the learner got lost but recovered to
calculate the concentration of the ions of each substance by appropriately using the
ratio technique. The learner appropriately compared the concentrations of the ions.
The learner’s response was advanced since all the answers were correct. An example
of advanced response to question 5 is shown in figure 4.67.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
137
Competent response to question 5
This learner chose the correct formula, substituted appropriately and got the correct
concentration by first finding the number of moles. The learner did the calculations for
the concentrations for both substances. The learner did not calculate the concentration
of the H+ ions as required by the question, but the learner’s final answer was correct.
The learner’s response was therefore classified as competent because of not
calculating the concentration of ions. An example of a competent response to this
question is shown in figure 4.68.
Figure 4:68
Competent response to question 5
Intermediate response in question 5
This learner appropriately calculated the number of moles for each of the two
substances given. They got the concentration of HCl without showing formula or
calculation. The learner did not calculate the concentration of H2SO4 or the
concentration of H+ ions for both H2SO4 and HCl. This response was therefore
classified as intermediate. An example of intermediate response to this question is
shown on the figure 4.69.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
138
Figure 4:69
Intermediate response in question 5
Novice response to question 5
The learner just managed to write an incorrect formula without any substitution. The
work was classified as a novice idea since they did not complete the calculation. An
example of a novice response to this question is shown in figure 4.70.
Figure 4:70
Novice response in question 5
4.3.1.8 Question 6a
This question was a level II question requiring learners to balance the equation of a
chemical reaction. The learners were expected to balance the number of atoms as
well as writing the correct formulae of both reactants and products.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
139
Intermediate response to question 6a
The learner who had an intermediate response to this question managed to write the
correct formulae for all the chemical substances in the equation. The learner also
balanced appropriately all the atoms in the equation. An example of intermediate
response to this question is shown in figure 4.71.
Figure 4:71
Intermediate response to question 6a
Elementary response to question 6a
The learner was incorrect in this question. The number of elements were wrong
because H atoms were not balanced. The learner did not know the correct formula of
the products but had an idea of how to balance the reaction. An example of elementary
response to question 6a is shown in figure 4.72.
Figure 4:72
Elementary response to question 6a
Novice response to question 6a
The learner wrote incorrect reactants and there were no products. There was no
indication of the learner having an idea of writing and balancing an equation of
reaction. The work was classified as a novice idea. An example of a novice response
to question 5 is shown in figure 4.73.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
140
Figure 4:73
Novice response to question 5
4.3.1.9 Question 6b
This was a level III question that required learners to calculate the number of moles of
HCl and NaOH. After the calculation of the number of moles, the learners were
supposed to use the mole ratio to identify the excess reactant between the two
substances.
Competent response in question 6b
This learner appropriately calculated the number of moles of NaOH and the moles of
HCl. The learner appropriately used the ratio technique to compare the number moles
of HCl and NaOH. The learner appropriately identified that 0,006moles HCl react with
0,006moles NaOH. The final answer indicating that HCl is in excess was, however,
not written down. The response was classified as competent since the learner correctly
did three step calculations. Figure 4.74 shows an example of a competent response
to question 6b in the post-intervention test.
Figure 4:74
Competent response to question 6b
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
141
Intermediate response to question 6b
This learner appropriately calculated the number of moles of HCl but inappropriately
calculated the number of moles of NaOH. The learner appropriately compared the
number of moles without showing the ratio. They then found that the excess reactant
was NaOH because of the positive marking after the error made in calculation of moles
of NaOH. The response was classified as intermediate because the learner correctly
performed two steps in calculations. An example of an intermediate response to this
question is shown in figure 4.75.
Figure 4:75
Intermediate response to question 6b
Elementary response to question 6b
The learner did a wrong calculation of relative molecular mass by adding the molecular
masses of HCl and NaOH. The learner used that molecular mass in a wrong formula
and got an answer. The learner’s work was classified as elementary because the
learner had an idea of calculating the relative molecular mass though she ended up
with a wrong answer. She had an idea of using the formula to do further calculation.
An example of an elementary response to this question is shown in figure 4.76.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
142
Figure 4:76
Elementary response to question 6b
Novice response to question 6b
The learner in this case did not have an idea of how to respond to this question. That
is why the learner did not write anything in response to this question. An example of
novice response to question 6b is shown in figure 4.77.
Figure 4:77
Novice response to question 6b
4.3.1.10 Question 6c
This was a level II question where learners were expected to make use of the balanced
chemical equation. The learners were supposed to use the mole ratio from a balanced
equation of reaction together with the number of moles of the limiting reactant to find
the equivalent number of moles of water. Then they would use the formula to calculate
the mass of water produced.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
143
Intermediate response to question 6c
The learner with intermediate knowledge appropriately used the ratio between H2O
and NaOH to find the equivalent moles of H2O. The learner then appropriately used
the correct formula to calculate the mass of water. This learner made no mistake, and
the work was classified as intermediate because it was solved through a two-step
calculation. An example of an intermediate response to this question is shown in figure
4.78.
Figure 4:78
Intermediate response to question 6c
Elementary response to question 6c
The elementary response to question 6c is shown below. It is not clear how the learner
found the wrong number of moles they used. This was possibly due to using the wrong
ratio. The learner, however, used the correct formula to calculate the mass of oxygen.
The answer is wrong, but the learner seemed to have a correct conception of how to
solve the problem. An example of an elementary response to question 6c is shown in
figure 4.79.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
144
Figure 4:79
Elementary response to question 6c
Novice response in question 6c
The learner with a novice idea of how to solve question 6c only wrote the H2O and
nothing else. It appears as if the learner did not have any idea of how to solve it. An
example of a novice response to question 6c is shown in figure 4.80.
Figure 4:80
Novice response to question 6c
`
4.3.2 Results of the post-intervention test data per participating
school
Both classes were taught using POGIL worksheets which are specially designed to
guide learners through a series of activities using similar analogies that helped them
to develop their own understanding of the concepts. The post-intervention test was
given to the learners after the intervention in stoichiometry. The following paragraphs
analyses the results from both schools.
4.3.2.1 School A post-intervention test results
Analysis of post-intervention test results at school A indicates that a total of 9
responses showed advanced knowledge while 64 showed competent knowledge. The
intermediate responses were 33 and the elementary responses were 87 while those
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
145
with novice ideas were 27. This shows most of the learners had advanced, competent,
and intermediate knowledge levels. More details of the post-intervention test results
from school A are shown in table 4.4.
Table 4:4
Post-intervention test results School A
Question Advanced Competent Intermediate Elementary Novice
1 0 0 0 22 0
2 0 16 1 4 1
3(a) 0 16 3 3 0
3(b) 0 0 9 12 1
4(a) 0 0 0 18 4
4(b) 2 15 3 0 2
5 7 7 4 2 2
6(a) 0 0 1 17 4
6(b) 0 10 2 5 5
6(c) 0 0 10 4 8
Totals 9 64 33 87 27
Percentage 4.1% 29.1% 15.0% 39.5% 12.3%
4.3.2.2 School B post-intervention test results
In school B there were a total of 15 advanced knowledge responses, 81 competent
responses and 75 intermediate knowledge responses. The elementary and novice
knowledge levels were 55 and 34 responses, respectively. More details about the
post-intervention test results from school B are shown in table 4.5.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
146
Table 4:5
Post-intervention test results School B
Question Advanced Competent Intermediate Elementary Novice
1 0 0 0 25 1
2 0 19 5 1 1
3(a) 0 20 5 1 0
3(b) 0 0 18 3 5
4(a) 0 0 0 24 2
4(b) 4 13 8 0 1
5 11 11 0 1 3
6(a) 0 0 22 0 4
6(b) 0 18 2 0 6
6(c) 0 0 15 0 11
Totals 15 81 75 55 34
Percentage 5.8% 31.2% 28.8% 21.2% 13.1%
4.3.2.3 Combined post-intervention test results for both schools
An analysis of both classes in schools A and B indicate that 5% of their post-
intervention test responses showed advanced knowledge of stoichiometry. The
percentage of competent knowledge about stoichiometry was 30,2%, while the
intermediate knowledge level was 22,5%. The elementary knowledge level was 29,6%
of the learners’ responses and the learners with novice ideas about the topic made up
12,7% of the learners’ responses. Table 4.6 shows the combined post-intervention
test results for both schools.
Table 4:6
Post-intervention test results for School A and B
Question Advanced Competent Intermediate Elementary Novice
1 0 0 0 47 1
2 0 35 6 5 2
3(a) 0 36 8 4 0
3(b) 0 0 27 15 6
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
147
4(a) 0 0 0 42 6
4(b) 6 28 11 0 3
5 18 18 4 3 5
6(a) 0 0 23 17 8
6(b) 0 28 4 5 11
6(c) 0 0 25 4 19
Totals 24 145 108 142 61
Percentage 5.0% 30.2% 22.5% 29.6% 12.7%
4.3.3 Summary of the post-intervention test results
Very few learners demonstrated novice ideas of stoichiometry. Even fewer learners
demonstrated advanced knowledge. Most of the learners demonstrated competent,
intermediate, and elementary knowledge. Compared to the pre-intervention test, this
suggests a shift from novice ideas to higher levels of competence in the post-
intervention test. This suggests that the learners’ reasoning after the intervention was
much higher in the post-intervention test than in the pre-intervention test. The learners
demonstrated that they could solve difficult questions more easily than they initially did
in the pre-intervention test.
4.3.4 Comparison of post-intervention test and pre-intervention test
results
Question 1 the both the post-intervention test and the pre-intervention test was a level
I question. The results in the pre-intervention test indicate that 35 learners in the
sample of 48 demonstrated elementary knowledge while 13 learners demonstrated
novice ideas. In the post-intervention test, only 1 of these same learners demonstrated
novice ideas. The rest (47) of the learners demonstrated elementary knowledge. The
learners observed the data available and reasoned on the appropriate formula to use,
reasoned well in doing proper substitution and solving the question correctly. The
learners demonstrated improvement in reasoning to solve this single-step question.
Question 2 was level III in both the pre-intervention test and the post-intervention test.
The results in the pre-intervention test suggest 37 learners in the sample
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
148
demonstrated novice ideas. Seven learners demonstrated elementary knowledge on
this question as they managed to solve only part of this three-step calculation by
performing a single-step calculation. Two learners demonstrated intermediate
knowledge by solving part of the problem through two steps, while 2 learners
completed the three-step calculation correctly. In the post-intervention test following
the intervention, only 2 learners demonstrated novice ideas in solving question 2. This
was a huge improvement from the 37 who demonstrated novice ideas in the pre-
intervention test. Five learners demonstrated elementary ideas in the post-intervention
test and 6 learners demonstrated intermediate knowledge. The learners who
demonstrated competent knowledge in question 2 were 35. These learners managed
to correctly solve the three-step problem. This showed an improvement in learners’
reasoning in a three-step problem. The learners demonstrated that their reasoning
had increased after the intervention.
Question 3a was also a level III question in both the pre-intervention test and the post-
intervention test. The results in the pre-intervention test suggest that 34 learners
demonstrated novice ideas while in the post-intervention test there was no learner with
novice ideas. A total of 9 demonstrated elementary knowledge in the pre-intervention
test compared to 4 learners in the post-intervention test. Two learners in the pre-
intervention test compared to 8 learners in the post-intervention test demonstrated
intermediate knowledge. Three learners in the pre-intervention test compared to 36 in
the post-intervention test demonstrated competent knowledge. This suggests that
learners’ reasoning had improved after the intervention as compared with before the
intervention. The learners showed improved reasoning in solving a three-step
calculation.
Question 3b was a level II question that needed to be solved through a two-step
calculation. The pre-intervention test witnessed 36 learners with novice ideas while
the post-intervention test showed only 6. Nine learners in the pre-intervention test
compared to 15 learners in the post-intervention test demonstrated elementary
knowledge. Three learners in the pre-intervention test compared to 27 learners in the
post-intervention test demonstrated intermediate knowledge of solving this 2-step
calculation without any errors. The results show that there was an improvement in
learners’ reasoning since the intermediate knowledge increased from 3 learners to 27
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
149
learners and the novice ideas decreased from 36 learners in the pre-intervention test
to 6 learners in the post-intervention test.
Question 4a was a level I question in which learners had to recall the definition from
memory. In the pre-intervention test, 36 learners demonstrated novice ideas while only
12 managed to define limiting reactant correctly. In the post-intervention test, there
were only 6 learners with novice ideas while 42 correctly defined limiting reactant.
Though this question did not require reasoning, the learners improved their knowledge
to define the concept. This seems to indicate that the POGIL intervention was effective
in improving learners’ knowledge.
Question 4b was a level IV question that required a multi-step calculation. In the pre-
intervention test, 37 learners demonstrated novice ideas to solve the question. This is
compared to 3 learners in the post-intervention test. This seems to suggest that the
intervention resulted in the improvement of learners who did not possess any
mathematical reasoning in the pre-intervention test. The learners with elementary
knowledge were 7 in the pre-intervention test compared to none in the post-
intervention test. The learners with intermediate knowledge were 3 in the pre-
intervention test compared to 11 in the post-intervention test. There was only 1 learner
with competent knowledge in the pre-intervention test compared to 28 learners in the
post-intervention test. This suggests that learners’ reasoning to perform three-step
calculations had improved because of the POGIL intervention. In the pre-intervention
test, no learner demonstrated advanced knowledge while in the post-intervention test
there were 6 learners with advanced knowledge. This demonstrated an improvement
in learners’ reasoning to solve multi-step calculations because of the POGIL approach.
Question 5 was a multi-step level IV question. In the pre-intervention test, there were
29 learners with novice ideas compared to 5 in the post-intervention test. This seems
to show that the POGIL approach increased learners’ reasoning as shown by a
decrease in the number of learners with novice ideas. It means the intervention may
have been effective in decreasing the number of learners with novice ideas. There
were 9 learners with elementary knowledge in the pre-intervention test compared to 3
in the post-intervention test. This showed a reduction in the number of elementary
solutions. There were 6 learners with intermediate knowledge in the pre-intervention
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
150
test compared to 4 in the post-intervention test. In contrast, there were only 4 learners
with competent knowledge in the pre-intervention test compared to 18 in the post-
intervention test. This suggests that there was an improvement in learners’ reasoning
in solving calculations through three steps. No learner demonstrated advanced
knowledge in the pre-intervention test compared to 18 in the post-intervention test.
Overall, these figures suggest a sharp increase in learners’ reasoning so solve multi-
step calculations.
Question 6a was a level II question requiring learners to balance the equation of a
chemical reaction by applying the ratio technique to balance the number of atoms of
each element. In the pre-intervention test, there were 35 learners with novice ideas
about balancing the equation of reaction, while in the post-intervention test the number
decreased to 8. This seems to show that the POGIL way of teaching improved
learners’ reasoning. There were 7 learners with elementary knowledge compared to
17 in the post-intervention test. Six learners who demonstrated intermediate
knowledge in the pre-intervention test compared to 23 in the post-intervention test.
The results suggest that the learners’ reasoning improved. They managed to work
through the balancing of the equation of reaction applying the ratio technique and a
great improvement was observed in the post-intervention test results.
Question 6b in the post-intervention test was a level III question that required learners
to go through a three-step calculation. As with 6b, 6c, and 6d, the question was
combined in the pre-intervention test. These three were all level I questions. The pre-
intervention test results suggest that most of the learners demonstrated novice ideas.
The post-intervention test results indicate that 28 learners demonstrated competent
knowledge, 4 with intermediate knowledge and 5 showing elementary knowledge. This
suggests an improvement of learners’ reasoning after the intervention.
Question 6e in the pre-intervention test was similar to question 6c in the post-
intervention test. Both were level II questions that required two-step calculation. In the
pre-intervention test, 42 learners demonstrated novice ideas in answering this
question, while 5 learners demonstrated elementary knowledge and 1 demonstrated
intermediate knowledge. In the post-intervention test, 19 learners demonstrated
novice ideas. The learners who demonstrated elementary and intermediate
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
151
knowledge were 4 and 25, respectively. The increase in the number of learners with
intermediate knowledge shows the increase in their mathematical reasoning as they
correctly completed the two-step process. The decrease in the number of novice ideas
in the post-intervention test demonstrates the increase in learners’ reasoning as they
managed to either perform one-step or two-step calculations.
The results suggest an improvement in advanced knowledge in the post-intervention
test compared to the pre-intervention test results, shown by the shift to higher levels.
This shows that there was a considerable increase in critical thinking as the learners
increased their thinking skills to attain higher-order thinking which is associated with
advanced knowledge level. The results also suggest an increase in the competent and
intermediate knowledge levels. This shows an improvement of critical thinking and
reasoning skills and understanding of the complex multi-step calculations in
stoichiometry. There was a decrease in elementary and novice knowledge levels in
the post-intervention test compared to the pre-intervention test. This shows that the
learners who held elementary knowledge improved to higher levels of cognition. The
results, therefore, indicate that the intervention may have been effective in reducing
lower thinking skills and promoting higher-order thinking skills which entails improved
reasoning.
The results suggest that there was an improvement in learners’ levels of knowledge
after the intervention. This increase suggests an increase in learners’ mathematical
reasoning. It suggests the increase in the learners’ ability to analyse the given data
and choose the appropriate formula. The learners also managed to correctly substitute
and make the appropriate subject of the formula. The learners then correctly
calculated the unknown value accompanied by the correct units. In the case of two-
step calculations, the learners improved in the proper use of the answer in the first
step to perform the next calculation. In the case of the three-step or multi-step
calculations, the learners demonstrated improved ability to make use of different
formulae and applying appropriate reasoning until they obtained the correct answers.
The results suggest the learners increased their understanding of the topic. The
improved reasoning suggests that the learners improved their ability to apply, analyse,
evaluate, and create as they worked with the data and used different formulae to solve
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
152
problems. It suggests that the POGIL way of teaching have been effective in
increasing their reasoning skills, critical thinking skills and problem-solving techniques.
4.4 Analysis of ratio questions
One of the most challenging mathematical techniques in this topic is the use of ratios.
Many learners fail to make use of mole ratios in stoichiometry and as a result they are
unable to successfully solve advanced high-order questions which involve multi-step
calculations. Manipulation of ratio is a mathematical technique that is associated with
multi-step questions where learners link one step to the next. Reasoning and
understanding and critical thinking are required at this stage to apply logic based on
the use of the mole ratios in the balanced equation of reactions. This ability is particular
to high-order complex questions where reasoning is required.
In this section, I present the analysis of the knowledge levels the learners
demonstrated in the questions that required the use of ratios in the pre-intervention
test. A similar analysis of the knowledge levels for the post-intervention test questions
is also presented. Thereafter, I present a comparison of the pre-intervention test and
the post-intervention test results in this regard as a conclusion of this section.
4.4.1 Learners’ responses to items requiring the use ratios in the
pre-intervention test
Most questions in the pre-intervention test such as 2, 3(a), 3(b), 4(b), 5, 6(a), 6(d) and
6(e) dealt with ratio. Questions 6a, 6d and 6e were level II questions. They had to be
solved with two-step calculations. Question 6a was about balancing the equation of a
chemical reaction where a lot of ratios are used. Questions 2 and 3a were level III
questions that required a three-step process. Question 4b and 5 were multi-step level
IV questions.
The data analysed in this section were taken from the original table of results in the
pre-intervention test indicated in section 4.1.3 on table 4.3. Only the ratio questions
have been used in this section. The results suggest that there was no learner with an
advanced knowledge level. The number of competent knowledge levels in the results
was 10, while the intermediate knowledge levels were 18. The elementary knowledge
levels were 54 and the novice levels were 254. The results suggest that most of the
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
153
learners’ responses in the pre-intervention test were novice ideas. This suggests that
overall, the learners had low-level reasoning and critical thinking. The learners did not
have enough skill to solve high-order multi-step questions requiring mathematical
reasoning about ratios. Table 4.7 shows the results of the ratio analysis in the pre-
intervention test.
Table 4:7
Ratio analysis on the pre-intervention test
Question Advanced Competent Intermediate Elementary Novice
2 0 2 2 7 37
3(a) 0 3 2 9 34
3(b) 0 0 3 9 36
4(b) 0 1 3 7 37
5 0 4 6 9 29
6(d) 0 0 1 8 39
6(e) 0 0 1 5 42
Total 0 10 18 54 254
Percentage 0.0% 3.0% 5.4% 16.1% 75.6%
4.4.2 Learners’ responses to items requiring the use of ratios in the
post-intervention test
The post-intervention test included six questions in which the ratio technique was
applied. The questions were numbers 2, 3(a), 3(b), 4(b), 5 and 6(c). The data used to
analyse the ratio technique were taken from the original table of results in the post-
intervention test indicated in table 4.6.
In the post-intervention test, the advanced knowledge level had 24 responses and the
competent knowledge level had 117. The intermediate knowledge level stood at 81
responses while the elementary and novice levels were 31 and 35 responses,
respectively. This would suggest that the responses in the post-intervention test were
mainly on the higher level of cognition in the post-intervention test. Only about 20% of
the responses in the post-intervention test were in the lower-level category of
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
154
elementary and novice levels. It appears to suggest that the POGIL intervention had
effectively increased the higher levels of cognition of reasoning and critical thinking.
Most of the learners displayed high reasoning ability in the post-intervention test. Table
4.8 shows the ratio analysis in the post-intervention test results.
Table 4:8
Ratio analysis Post-intervention test results
Question Advanced Competent Intermediate Elementary Novice
2 0 35 6 5 2
3(a) 0 36 8 4 0
3(b) 0 0 27 15 6
4(b) 6 28 11 0 3
5 18 18 4 3 5
6(c) 0 0 25 4 19
Totals 24 117 81 31 35
Percentage 8.3% 40.6% 28.1% 10.8% 12.2%
4.4.3 Comparison of the pre-intervention test and post-intervention
test ratio questions
For the discussion i this section, the data from tables 4.7 and 4.8 above were used.
Analysis shows an improvement in the advanced knowledge level from 0,0% in the
pre-intervention test to 8,3% in the post-intervention test results. There was also
improvement in the competent knowledge level, from 3% in the pre-intervention test
to 40,6% in the post-intervention test. The intermediate knowledge level improved from
5,4% in the pre-intervention test to 28,1% in the post-intervention test. This shows that
the learners improved their knowledge in the high-order multi-step problems. The
elementary knowledge level decreased from 16,1% in the pre-intervention test to
10,8% in the post-intervention test, while the novice ideas decreased from 75,6% in
the pre-intervention test to 12,2% in the post-intervention test. The results suggest that
the POGIL method decreased the number of novice ideas as well as elementary ideas
and improved the number of higher-order thinking skills of critical thinking and
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
155
reasoning. The learners solved ratio questions better after the POGIL intervention than
they did before the intervention. Many learners who initially did not know reasoning
and did not understand the use of ratio and critical thinking, showed great
improvement after the intervention.
The pre-intervention test results suggest that most learners had novice or elementary
ideas about stoichiometry to begin with. The results suggest very few intermediate and
competent knowledge levels and almost no advanced knowledge levels. The results
in both schools A and B were comparable in the pre-intervention test, indicating that
they had similar levels of cognition to begin with.
The post-intervention test results suggest an improvement in the higher-order
knowledge levels of advanced, competent, and intermediate. There was a clear
decrease in the elementary and novice levels of cognition, suggesting cognitive
improvement after the POGIL intervention. This also gives the impression that POGIL
intervention may be effective in eliciting the development of higher levels of cognition
and reasoning and critical thinking.
4.5 Results from the POGIL intervention
The analysis of data obtained during the intervention in the POGIL groups was done
following the ICAP framework discussed in sections 2.5 and 3.6.6. In the intervention,
learners’ activities were grouped in four models. Each model was an activity and aimed
at achieving the objectives of the learning cycle. The results for the intervention are
presented one model after another. Quotes from the transcripts of the learners’
discussions as they completed the POGIL tasks have been added to demonstrate the
type of verbal interactions they had as they carried out the tasks. A summary of the
findings is provided at the end of the section.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
156
4.5.1 Learner responses to Model 1
Figure 4:81
The diagram showing Model 1.
Model 1 question 1 read as follows:
How many of each part are needed to construct 1 complete race car?
Figure 4.81 was the introduction task for the topic “limiting reactant”. It was designed
to begin with easy and familiar concepts before introducing the chemistry concepts.
The reader read the question and the rest of the group members listened carefully.
This was the passive cognitive level. Table 4.9 summarizes the observations of the
learners’ activities to question 1.
Table 4:9
Learners’ first activity, cognitive level, and the image for question 1
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Reading, listening Passive
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
157
After the reading of the question the learners started responding in turn, asking “how
many bodies do we need”? The next learner responded, “one”, and another “I go for
one”, and yet another, “okay one”. The reader then asked, “and cylinders?” to which
all agreed on three cylinders, one engine and 4 tyres. The learners quickly responded
by looking at the parts for constructing a model car. They did quick mental analysis
and shared their views until they agreed. They then compiled their answers on the
worksheet. The learners were in the interactive cognitive level since they shared ideas
and assisted each other. Table 4.10 summarizes learners’ cognitive level and its
classification based on the ICAP framework.
Table 4:10
Learners’ second activity, cognitive level, and the image for question 1
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Agree, elaborate, compile ideas Interactive
Model 1 question 2 read as follows:
How many of each part would be needed to construct 3 complete race cars? Show
your work.
One learner spoke up saying, “To make three complete race cars, okay we are going
to multiply each part by three, right?” The other learner responded, “yeah”. Then the
learners went, “Bodies = 1x3 = 3 bodies; 3x3 = 9 cylinders; 1x3 = 3 engines and 4x3
= 12 tyres” as a group. The learners quickly identified the clue of multiplying each part
by 3. They quickly calculated the answers and began writing them on the worksheet
using mathematical skills as justification. They agreed on the answers before writing
them down. The cognitive level of the learners was interactive since they shared ideas
and agreed on the collective response to the question. Table 4.11 shows below shows
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
158
a summary of learners’ cognitive level and its classification of question 2 based on the
ICAP framework.
Table 4:11
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 2
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Agree, elaborate, compile ideas, justify Interactive
Model 1 question 3a read as follows:
Assuming that, you have 15 cylinders and an unlimited supply of the remaining
parts. How many complete race cars can you make? Show your work.
The learners quickly identified the clue and elaborated it “divide 15 by 3”. To which
another learner asked, “why?” The other learner responded, “because a car only
needs 3 cylinders so 15÷3 = 5 cars.” The learners worked collectively and helped each
other until they found their answers to the question. After agreeing, they compiled their
answer. The cognitive level in the question was interactive. Table 4.12 shows a
summary of the analysis of question 3a based on learners’ cognitive levels and
classification of activities based on the ICAP framework.
Table 4:12
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 3a
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Agree, elaborate, justify, compile ideas Interactive
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
159
Model 1 question 3b read as follows:
How many of each remaining part would be needed to make this number of
cars? Show your work.
After reading the question while the other learners were listening, the learners waited.
They were confused at first as one said, “because they are unlimited meaning, they
are so many parts?” Another learner asked, “so how can we find how many they are?”.
They read through the question again until they overcame this challenge and said
“Ooh, how many of each part…?” So, to make 5 cars how many engines do we need?”
“5 engines”. They proceeded and found 5 bodies and 20 tyres. They justified their
answers with mathematical calculations. They discussed and elaborated on each
answer in the group. The interactive cognitive level was evident in this question. Table
4.13 shows a summary of the analysis of question 3b.
Table 4:13
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 3b
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Elaborate, justify, compile ideas, “Aha” challenge,
agree
Interactive
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
160
4.5.2 Learner responses to Model 2
Figure 4:82
The diagram showing Model 2.
Model 2 question 4 read as follows:
Count the number of each Race Car Part present in Container A of Model 2.
The learners quickly understood the easy activity of counting the parts for the
construction of the model car. They collectively counted and agreed on the answer
before writing it down. “How many bodies?” and the answer went “three”. The learners’
cognitive level was interactive as they share knowledge and argued their answers in
the group giving correct justification for their responses. Table 4.14 summarizes the
analysis for question 4.
Table 4:14
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 4
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Justify, compile ideas, elaborate, argue, agree Interactive
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
161
Model 2 question 5 read as follows:
Complete Model 2 by drawing the maximum number of cars that can be made
from the parts in Container A. Show any excess parts remaining also.
The learners understood the question after taking some time to brainstorm. They
asked for assistance from the teacher who came to assist them by giving guiding
questions to get them on the right track. The teacher did not tell the learners the
answers but only guided them on how to get to the answer. The learners were left with
clarity and were able to answer the question. The learners elaborated their answer by
making careful drawings of the race cars, showing all the parts. They agreed on their
answers, asking for consensus from the rest of the group members. The cognitive
level of the learners was interactive. Table 4.15 summarizes the analysis of question
5.
Table 4:15
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 5
Activities Cognitive level
Imag
e
Justify, compile ideas, elaborate, argue, agree Interactive
Model 2 question 6 read as follows:
A student says, “I can see that we have three car bodies in Container A, so we should
be able to build three complete race cars.” Explain why this student is incorrect in this
case.
The learners argued over the number of cars that could be formed. “we have four
engines so we must get four cars” and another said, “no we don’t have so many
cylinders”. The learners brainstormed for a while. Then another learner said, “We only
have two complete cars; we cannot make another car because of the shortage of the
parts”. The learners were correct that the parts were not enough to make an extra car.
This means the learners correctly analysed the parts needed and made a correct
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
162
judgement after reflection when they were initially confused. The cognitive level was
interactive. Table 4.16 summarizes the analysis of question 6.
Table 4:16
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 6
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Justify, compile ideas, elaborate, argue,
agree
Interactive
Model 2 question 7a read as follows:
Suppose you have an exceptionally large number (dozens or hundreds) of tyres
and bodies, but you only have 5 engines and 12 cylinders. How many complete
cars can you build? Show your work.
The learners were not challenged by this question. They quickly said, “we are going
to make 4 cars, right?”. “Yes, because 12 cylinders can only make 4 cars.” The
learners did a quick and correct analysis of the question. They, however, did not say
anything about the engines. It seems that the learners realised that the number of
cylinders limited the number of cars, so they can only build 4 cars. So, they did develop
the concept of “limiting part”. The learners agreed on each of their answers before
taking them down. The answer was properly justified using facts and calculations. The
cognitive level was interactive because the learners shared their ideas with each other.
Table 4.17 shows detailed analysis of question 7a.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
163
Table 4:17
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 7a
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Justify, compile ideas, elaborate, argue, agree Interactive
Model 2 question 7b read as follows:
Suppose you have an exceptionally large number (dozens or hundreds) of tyres
and bodies, but you only have 5 engines and 12 cylinders. Which part (engines
or cylinders) limits (stops you from making) the number of cars that you can
make?
After listening to the reader, one learner said, “It’s the engine”. Another learner
responded, “What did the engine do” and the first learner said, “if the engine is not
there you cannot make a car”. After some debate, the group agreed that the engine
was the limiting part. This answer was incorrect. The group members did not make a
thorough justification of the answer to find if it was correct. The learners just agreed to
the one who said the wrong answer. The cognitive level was interactive since learners
shared their opinions though on learner seem to have dominion over the others.
Careful consideration should be taken when grouping learners, since the brighter
learners may overshadow others. Another group, however, correctly identified the
cylinder as the limiting part. They said, “because all the cylinders are used up, and
one engine still remains.” Table 4.18 summarizes the analysis of question 7b.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
164
Table 4:18
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 7b
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Justify, compile ideas, elaborate, argue, agree Interactive
Model 2 question 8 read as follows:
Fill in the table below with the maximum number of complete race cars that can be
built from each container of parts (A–E), and indicate which part limits the number of
cars that can be built. The answers for container A were provided as an example.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
165
Table 4:19
Table for model 2 question 8
Model 2 question 8B:
The learners read and calculated their answers as they read through the question.
“We have 5 engines, and 5 engines make 5 cars, and we have 50 tyres, and 12
cylinders, and 12 cylinders can make 4 cars. Meaning we can only make 4 cars due
to our 12 cylinders?”. Another asked, “Right?” The other learner proceeded, “and 4
bodies and we will be left with 46 bodies, and cylinders we use all 12”. Yet another
learner added, “Meaning maximum number of complete cars is 4 and limiting part is
cylinder”. The learners brainstormed through the available information. They
calculated how many cars they could make using each of the given parts. They
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
166
identified that the limiting part was cylinders because they could produce the lowest
number of cars using the available cylinders. After getting the maximum number of
complete cars the learners then filled in the table about the parts used and parts left
over. They gave the correct justification of their ideas and agreed on the same answer
as a team, and they compiled their answers on the worksheet. The learners were
working on the interactive cognitive level since they produced answers from mutual
discussions. Table 4.20 shows a summary of the analysis of question 8B.
Table 4:20
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 8B
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Justify, compile ideas, elaborate, argue, agree Interactive
Model 2 question 8C:
The learners were initially challenged by seeing that there were 16 of each part. “Ooh
everything is 16, 16, 16, 16?”, Another learner said, “Oh yeah”. They brainstormed a
little bit and then reflected on the way forward. “It means we are going to have due to
16 cylinders we get 5 cars”, and the other learner added “and 1 cylinder remains.”
Then they went on analysing using the number of cylinders. “For 5 cars we will need
5 bodies”, and the other learner added “for 5 cars we are going to use 20 tyres.” “Oh
no, we can’t use tyres.” The other learner said, “so our limiting part is tyre, so we will
use 4 bodies and be left with 12”. The learners went on to use 12 cylinders and were
left with 4, and used all 16 tyres, “all 16 tyres? …. All 16 tyres and remain zero.”
The learners used the trial-and-error method differently from the previous question.
They took a part and decided to find how many other parts may be needed. Their first
choice was not appropriate, and they saw that they would need more tyres than what
they had. They reflected and decided to use tyres and do the same calculations all
over again. The learners appropriately elaborated how many parts would be needed.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
167
At each stage, they agreed to proceed or to change their opinion. They compiled their
answers onto the table. The cognitive level was interactive since the learners worked
collectively. Table 4.21 summarizes the analysis for question 8C.
Table 4:21
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 8C
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Brainstorming, agree challenge, elaborate, reflect Interactive
Model 2 question 8D
One of the learners quickly said, “We have 4 bodies we can make 4 cars” and another
learner responded, “we have 9 cylinders, we can make 3 cars”. Another learner says,
“we have 16 tyres we can make 4 cars and we have 6 engines we can make 6 cars.”
The reader asked, “So what is our limiting part?” And the response was “cylinder”,
“cylinder is the limiting part since we can make fewer cars”.
The learners used the method of analysing part by part to see how many complete
cars could be formed by each. The elaboration and justification show that the learners
were aware of what they were doing. They agreed with each other before compiling
their answers showing that they were co-generating their answers. This method makes
them find the limiting part without making an error and not facing any challenges. They
were in the interactive cognitive level. Table 4.22 summarizes the analysis for question
8D.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
168
Table 4:22
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 8D
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Brainstorming, agree challenge, elaborate, reflect Interactive
Model 2 question 8E
When looking at the question, one of the learners said, “We have 20 bodies so we can
make 20 cars …” “So, what is our limiting part?” Another learner responded, “our
limiting part is the tyre, since we used all tyres, we get 10 cars, and we are left with
zero.” The learners continued compiling their answers as they elaborated with
calculations of the used and excess parts. They justified their answers by making quick
mental calculations and agreeing on their answers before proceeding to the next
calculation. They were at the interactive cognitive level since they co-generated their
answers. Table 4.23 summarizes the analysis of question 8E.
Table 4:23
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 8E
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Elaborate, agree, compiling ideas, justify Interactive
Model 2 question 9 read as follows:
The Zippy Race Car Company builds toy race cars by the thousands. They do not
count individual car parts. Instead, they measure their parts in “oodles” (a large
number of things).
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
169
Model 2 question 9a read as follows:
a. Assuming the inventory (list) in their warehouse below, how many race cars
could the Zippy Race Car Company build? Show your work.
Body (B) Cylinder (Cy) Engine (E) Tire (Tr)
4 oodles 5 oodles 8 oodles 8 oodles
One of the learners said, “Oodles!! Eish, I don’t understand”. The learners were
challenged by the word “oodles” which they seemed not to understand during the
reading time. They remained silent for some time while reading over the problem
again. Then one said, “What are they trying to say?” After brainstorming for a while,
another learner said, “we have 4 bodies we can make 4 cars, we have 5 cylinders we
can make 1 car.” And the other said “so we are going to make only 1 car?” Another
learner responded, “no, 1 oodle, not 1 car”. The learners became disengaged and
started doing other things, though they had stumbled on a clue that could assist them.
They were confused by the word oodle (a large number of things) being used instead
of cars.
When the learners were disengaged, they were also laughing. After some time, they
returned to the work with the answer saying, “It’s 1 oodle.” They deduced that the
correct word to use was oodles and not cars. They did not elaborate on this answer,
showing that they may have found the answer from another group. The cognitive level
for this question was both interactive because of the mutual discussions and
disengaged because of the time they abandoned their workstation. Table 4.24
summarizes the analysis for this question.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
170
Table 4:24
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 9a
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Challenge, agree, brainstorming, doing other things Interactive,
disengaged
Model 2 question 9b read as follows:
Explain why it is not necessary to know the number of parts in an “oodle” to
solve the problem in part a.
The learners just answered, “because we are given the tip – oodles.” This was not the
appropriate answer, and it shows that the previous question was not properly
understood. They did not explain the answer but just agreed to that as their answer
using a piece of paper which could have been one member’s idea or an answer from
another group. The cognitive level was still coded as interactive since they agreed on
one answer, though it was not a productive co-generation of answers. Table 4.25
summarizes the analysis for question 9b.
Table 4:25
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 9b
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Challenge, agree, brainstorming, doing other things Interactive
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
171
Model 2 question 10 read as follows:
Look back at the answers to Questions 8 and 9. Is the component with the
smallest number of parts always the one that limits production? Explain your
group’s reasoning.
One learner said, “No, no, because container E had 40 tyres, but we did not make 40
cars.” The learners compared their answer with the previous question to find the
answer. They did not answer the question fully by explaining that it depends on the
number of parts needed to make one complete car. They seemed unsure of their
response and just answered for the sake of it. The learners seemed to have been
demoralized by the word “oodles” which was introduced to them in the previous
question. However, their cognitive level was interactive because they agreed on the
answer. Table 4.26 shows a summary of the analysis of question 10.
Table 4:26
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 10
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Elaborate, challenge, agree, compare, reason Interactive
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
172
4.5.3 Learner responses to Model 3
Figure 4:83
The diagram showing Model 3.
Model 3 question 11a read as follows:
How many moles of water molecules are produced if one mole of oxygen
molecules completely reacts?
The first learner explained, “in each reaction we only need a single oxygen and 2
hydrogen.” To which the second learner responded, “No, we are going to have 2 water
molecules … 2 moles”. The learners may have confused the words mole and
molecule. The one who initially said “molecules” now changes to “moles” without any
reason. The learners then compiled their answers as they encircle the molecules of
H2 and O2 reacting, and the molecules of water formed using ratio technique. They did
this collectively and constructively, so the cognitive level is interactive and, therefore,
active learning. The learners were able to appropriately answer the question by
identifying the number of water molecules produced. Table 4.27 shows a summary of
the analysis of question 11a.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
173
Table 4:27
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 11a
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Elaborate, challenge, agree, compare, reason Interactive
Model 3 question 11b read as follows:
How many moles of hydrogen molecules are needed to react with one mole
of oxygen molecules?
One learner said, “So, we are going to have these 2 moles of hydrogen molecules to
react with 1 mole of oxygen.” Another learner responded, “Oh yeah, because each
molecule of O2 reacts with 2 molecules of H2.” The learners did not struggle to find the
pattern of the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. They found that 2 moles of
hydrogen are needed. They collectively agreed on the answer, so the cognitive level
is interactive. Table 4.28 shows a summary of the analysis of question 11b.
Table 4:28
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 11b
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Justify, elaborate, compile ideas, agree Interactive
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
174
Model 3 question 12 read as follows:
Complete Model 3 by drawing the maximum number of moles of water
molecules that could be produced from the reactants shown and draw any
remaining number of moles of reactants in the container after reaction as well.
The learners discussed the number of atoms for each water molecule by referring to
the model drawn for them. After deliberating, they agreed that each water molecule
has 1 oxygen atom. “So, each water molecule has 1 oxygen and 2 hydrogens, right?”,
Another learner said, “Yes”. They circled the 2 hydrogen atoms together with 1 oxygen
atom. They did that 6 times and then drew the water molecules in the other container.
The learners demonstrated an understanding of the formula of water. They worked
collectively, so the cognitive level was interactive. Table 4.29 summarizes the analysis
of question 12.
Table 4:29
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 12
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Justify, elaborate, argue, compile ideas, agree,
highlight
Interactive
Model 3 question 12a read as follows:
Which reactant (oxygen or hydrogen) limited the production of water in
Container Q?
One learner said, “The answer is oxygen because there was a shortage of them”.
Another learner said, “No, not because there was a shortage of them.” The learners
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
175
have found the answer but are now arguing about the reason why it is oxygen the
limiting reactant. To get a reason was a challenge for them. “Okay then we’ll write it
without a reason.”
It appears the question was not clear for the learners. The learners may have not
acquired the concept “limiting reactant” though they had understood which substance
is used up first. This shows that the learners had not fully grasped the meaning of
‘limiting reactant’. The question could have read “which substance was completely
used up?” The learners may have understood the question better if it was asked that
way and may have answered it with reason since it was like the earlier models about
the race cars in which they did well. The cognitive level was interactive since the
learners shared ideas. Although there was little disagreement, they eventually had an
incomplete answer. Table 4.30 summarizes the analysis of question 12a.
Table 4:30
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 12a
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Argue, elaborate, challenge, agree, reason Interactive
Model 3 question 12b read as follows:
Which reactant (oxygen or hydrogen) was present in excess and remained after
the production of water was complete?
One learner said, “Hydrogen, the answer is hydrogen”. The learners quickly identified
the excess substance. They previously had difficulty finding the limiting reactant but
faced no challenge in finding the excess. Excess is an easier concept as it is visible.
The limiting agent is not visible and, therefore, a more abstract concept. So, it was
acceptable that the learners understood ‘excess’ reactant but not ‘limiting’ reactant.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
176
The question was extremely easy for the learners and their cognitive level was
interactive since they shared knowledge and agreed on the final answer before writing
down. Table 4.31 shows the summarized analysis of question 12b.
Table 4:31
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 12b
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Elaborate, compile ideas, agree Interactive
Model 3 question 13
13. Fill in the table below with the maximum number of moles of water that can be
produced in each container (Q–U). Indicate which reactant limits the quantity
of water produced—this is the limiting reactant. Also show how much of the
other reactant—the reactant in excess—will be left over. Divide the work
evenly among group members. Space is provided below the table for each
group member to show their work. Have each group member describe to the
group how they determined the maximum number of moles of water produced
and the moles of reactant in excess. Container Q from Model 3 is already
completed as an example.
2H2 + O2 → 2H2O
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
177
Question 13Q was given as an example to guide learners on how to respond to the
questions R to U. in the following paragraphs I presented the learners’ responses to
these questions including their discussions.
Model 3 question 13 R
As the reader read for the group, the group members repeated what she was reading
and nodded in agreement. The reader pointed to the model and the text saying, “So,
the reactant in excess is 1 mole of hydrogen, am I correct?”. The other learners
echoed, “Oh yes”, Another learner said, “No, no, no, why?”. Another learner said,
“Because we use 6 moles of hydrogen and 3 moles of oxygen.” This was appropriate
reasoning according to the mole ratio of 2:1 for the water molecule. But there was an
argument between the learners as they continued to disagree. One of the learners
explained, “If you check on our paper here (pointing on the worked example container
Q). If you check on our data, there are six hydrogens. 2 hydrogen is equal to 1 mol
oxygen and this is also 1 mole of water formed”. “If there are 7 moles of hydrogen so
we have 14 of those little balls (H atoms)”. The learner who was confused said, “Oh, I
now understand … moles of oxygen are 3 so we have this (O atoms), times 3”. This
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
178
was the “Aha” moment when learners discovered a hidden clue. The learners
eventually agreed that because they had 3 moles of oxygen, they needed 6 moles of
hydrogen. They identified that oxygen was the limiting reactant, 3 moles of water were
formed, and 2 moles of hydrogen remain in excess. The learners elaborated their
answer very well through long but productive arguments. They justified their ideas with
careful calculations. The learners were operating at an interactive cognitive level.
Table 4.32 shows the summary of the analysis of question 13R.
Table 4:32
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 13R
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Elaborate, highlight, compile ideas, challenge, agree,
repeat, argue
Interactive
Model 3 question 13S
One of the learners responded, “Oh, H2 is the reactant in excess,” Another said, “H2?
I don’t understand.” The other learner said, “2 moles of H2!”. Then the other learner
said, “Oh, now I get it.”. The other learner added that “Moles of oxygen are 5 and so
we need 10 moles of hydrogen” Another learner said, “so we are going to use all of
them because it must be 2 as to 1” The learners used the ratio properly and made the
correct calculation to get the answer. They were, however, challenged by the fact that
both reactants were used up. One of the learners said, “In this case, there is no limiting
reactant”. Another said, “they are both limiting reactants because they are both used
up”. The other learner asks, “so what’s a limiting reactant?” This shows that the
learners reflected on the concept of limiting reactant. The learners agreed that they
will use all 10 moles of hydrogen and leave zero. They are using 5 moles of oxygen,
also leaving zero. They identified that 5 moles of water are formed. The learners did
very well, and their answer is justified with appropriate calculations. The learners were
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
179
working at the interactive cognitive level. Table 4.33 shows a summary of the analysis
of question 13S.
Table 4:33
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 13S
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Elaborate, highlight, compile ideas, challenge, agree,
repeat, argue
Interactive
Model 3 question 13T
The learners quickly identified the limiting reactant in this question. “I feel the limiting
reactant is hydrogen”. Another learner said, “We are going to use 5 moles of hydrogen
and have zero left and we are going to…” The learners then got stuck because the
ratio must be 2:1 and in this case, if they use 5 moles of hydrogen then they must use
2,5 moles of oxygen. The learners debated whether to use 2 or 2,5 moles of oxygen.
“Is there anything like 2,5 moles?” meaning is it possible to have a decimal number of
moles. The learners finally agreed to 2,5 moles and appropriately calculated the
excess moles and the number of moles of water produced. Their thinking was at the
interactive cognitive level. Table 4.34 summarizes the analysis for question 13T.
Table 4:34
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 13T
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Elaborate, highlight, compile ideas, challenge, agree, argue Interactive
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
180
Model 3 question 13U
The learners quickly responded, “We use all the 8 moles of hydrogen and are left with
zero. The limiting reactant is hydrogen because we have 12 oxygen atoms.” The
learners elaborated their answer explaining how they get the limiting and the excess
reactant. They appropriately calculated the number of moles of water produced. Each
time they agreed before compiling their answers. They argued but eventually agreed
on one common answer for the group. This was at the interactive cognitive level. Table
4.35 shows the summary of the analysis of question 13U.
Table 4:35
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 13U
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Elaborate, highlight, compile ideas, challenge, agree,
repeat, argue
Interactive
Model 3 question 14 read as follows:
Look back at Questions 12 and 13. Is the reactant with the smaller number of
moles always the limiting reactant? Explain your group’s reasoning.
The learners quickly responded to this question. “No, in the previous question
hydrogen was the limiting reactant but it was 8 moles and oxygen had 6 moles.”
Another learner answered, “Oh yeah, it depends”. The learners appropriately observed
that it is not always the one with the lowest number of moles that becomes the limiting
reactant. But they did not give a reason to generalize the answer. Instead, they used
examples they had done as observations. They reflected appropriately on the previous
work. Once they agreed, the learners compiled the answers, which were at the
interactive level. Table 4.36 shows the summary of the analysis of question 14.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
181
Table 4:36
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 14
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Elaborate, reflect, compile ideas challenge, agree,
reason
Interactive
4.5.4 Learner responses to Model 4
Figure 4:84
The scenario showing Model 4.
Question 15
The group members listened attentively as the question was read. When the learner
read “… in container U question 13”, the reader quickly asks the group “do you
remember container U question 13? Or must I remind you?”. To this, the group
members indicated they did not remember, saying “yes remind me please”. This
showed that learners had already encountered a challenge. The reader brought back
the worksheet where they had done question 13. This showed that learners want to
learn starting from what they already know and building towards new knowledge. The
group then remembered and reflected on their prior knowledge and agreed to move
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
182
on after the elaboration of the question. This shows that the learners worked as a team
and interacted even before getting into the actual question to be answered. After this,
the question was read again as the member listened on. Table 4.37 shows a summary
of the analysis of question 15.
Table 4:37
Learners’ activities and cognitive level on question 15
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Challenge, elaborate, agree, reflection Interactive
After reflecting on question 13, the reader started to read the question again and all
the learners were listening attentively. These behaviours show that they operated in
the passive level of the ICAP framework at this stage.
At that point, the teacher intervened, asking the group, “what happened here?”
because some group members had moved away from their group and only two
members were left in the group of four. One of the learners responded, “they
disappeared”. The teacher called the learners back to their group. The possible reason
for the learners going away is that they may have been uncomfortable working in that
group, or they went to consult for the answers. This shows the special responsibility
that a POGIL facilitator must take when grouping learners.
Model 4 question 15a read as follows:
Do both calculations give the same answer to the problem?
After reading this question, the reader seemed challenged because she said, “you
may explain … you may explain”. The learners brainstormed for a while, comparing
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
183
the two methods. One of the learners then said, “our answer is Yes”. To this, the
second learner said, “yes, because the first method says hydrogen is the limiting
reactant and the second also says hydrogen is the limiting reactant”. The whole group
agreed and then compiled their answer onto the worksheet. The group co-generated
the answer, so they were operating on the interactive level. Table 4.38 shows a
summary of the analysis of question 15a.
Table 4:38
Learners’ activities and cognitive level on question 15a
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Challenge, agree, compile brainstorm, compare Interactive
Model 4 question 15b read as follows:
Which method was used most by your group members in question 13?
One of the learners said, “So, we used method A”. Another learner said, “Ooh yeah
we used method A”. The learners quickly identified the method like the one they used.
The learners had therefore compared the two methods to the method they previously
used and agreed on the answer, which they wrote on the worksheet. The learners
were operating at the interactive cognitive level because they were working as a group
and agreeing on one answer. They used the collective “we”, as in “we used” as
opposed to “I used”. Table 4.39 shows a summary of the analysis to question 15b.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
184
Table 4:39
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 15b
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Challenge, agree, compile brainstorm, compare Interactive
Model 4 question 15c read as follows:
Which method seemed easier and why?
The reader read the question while the group members listened attentively. This was
the passive stage of cognition.
Soon after reading, one of the learners responded, “method B is the easiest, right?”
Another learner also responded, “Yes, because it goes straight to the answer”. The
learners in this instant compare the two methods and found method B to be the
easiest. It means the learners analysed how they would use any of the two methods.
They observed that method A was long and increased the possibility of them making
a mistake. They preferred the quicker method over the long one, which was a wise
justification for the selection of their answer. They reasoned that “you don’t have to
calculate the moles of hydrogen and oxygen. You just go straight to the answer”. Table
4.40 shows a summary of the analysis of question 15b.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
185
Table 4:40
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 15b
Activities Cognitive
level
Image
Agree, compile, compare, justify, reason Interactive
Model 4 question 15d read as follows:
Did your group use any other method(s) of solving this problem that were
scientifically and mathematically appropriate? If so, explain the method.
As one learner read to the group, only one member was listening. Some members had
become distracted by other things and the teacher asked, “what’s going on here?” to
which the learners responded that “they have swopped the groups”. This shows that
the learners were not happy working in their previous groups. Great care should be
taken in forming groups because sometimes the required work may not be done if
learners are not comfortable with the group, they are in. At this stage, half of the group
was in the passive cognitive stage because of reading and listening while the other
half was distracted and, therefore, disengaged. Table 4.41 summarizes the analysis
of question 15d.
Table 4:41
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 15d first attempt
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Reading, listening, doing other things Passive,
disengaged
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
186
After initially being disengaged, the learners discussed and agreed that they did not
use any method to find the answers. “So, we didn’t use any method?”. Another
responded, “Yeah, we didn’t use any method, we used our IQ to solve the problem”.
While another learner said, “we used our natural knowledge and primary equation to
answer the question”. Though the learners agreed that they did not use any method,
they were wrong. They initially said they used method A on 15b, but changed their
minds, saying they didn’t use any method. The learners used method A, but the
difference was that in answering question 13 they were not showing the work, so it
was done mentally. They did not seem to reflect on what they did as compared to
method A. The learners did not realize that there was a pattern in how they solved
question 13. The pattern had crystalised in their minds and, thinking that it came
naturally, did not take time to analyse it. The cognitive level is still at the interactive
level because the learners are co-generating knowledge. Table 4.42 shows the
analysis of question 15d’s second attempt.
Table 4:42
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 15d second attempt.
Activities Cognitive level
Imag
e
Agree, compiling answers, justify Interactive
Model 4 question 16 read as follows:
16. Consider the synthesis of water as shown in Model 3. A container is filled with
10.0 g of H2 and 5.0 g of O2.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
187
Model 4 question 16a1 read as follows:
Which reactant (hydrogen or oxygen) is the limiting reactant in this case? Show your
work.
The learners did not take the time to read this question properly. Instead, they started
by saying, “so here we have to find the number of moles of oxygen and hydrogen,
right” and someone responded “yeah”. Then they started doing the calculation. One
learner said, “So, we have 10g of hydrogen and the formula is n = 𝑚
𝑀, =
10𝑔
2𝑔 , = 5 moles
hydrogen and we have 5g of oxygen so n = 𝑚
𝑀, =
5𝑔
32𝑔 , = 0,16 moles oxygen”.
The learners used the formula appropriately, thereby justifying their calculation. They
did elaborate as they answered collectively, communicating with each other by asking,
“what is 16x2?” and some then responding, “32”. They compiled their answers in the
calculation and reached a conclusion based on their answers. “The limiting reactant is
oxygen, right? Because it has the lowest number of moles”. They reached this
conclusion by comparing the number of moles of hydrogen and oxygen from their
calculations. Although they found the correct limiting reactant, their reasoning was
inappropriate. The learners failed to reflect on their answer to question 14, that the
substance with the lowest number of moles is not necessarily the limiting substance.
The learners are on the interactive cognitive level. Table 4.43 shows a summary of the
analysis of question 16a1.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
188
Table 4:43
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 16a1
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Agree, compiling answers, justify, elaborate, compare Interactive
Model 4 question 16a2 read as follows:
What mass of water can be produced? Show your work.
The learners read through the question and quickly started to answer. One learner
said, “We are going to use the number of moles. Let’s have our data”. n = 5 moles
Hydrogen + 0,16 moles oxygen = 5,16 moles H2O and we do not have the mass. The
molar mass of H2O is 2+16 = 18g/mole.” Another learner said, “remember the
coefficient from the equation” and someone else responded, “Oh, I am confused.”
They agreed on 2x2 + 2x16 = 36g/mole of H2O and went on to substitute into the
formula n = 𝑚
𝑀,
5,16= 𝑚
36 , m = and then “Eish guys, ha no”.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
189
The learners tried to get the number of moles of water by adding the moles of hydrogen
and oxygen to get 5,16 moles. The method agreed on was inappropriate. They used
the appropriate formula to calculate the mass of water and it seemed that the learners
did not know if this was correct or not. Only one learner said “eish guys, no” while the
rest did not respond. During this work, some group members were not paying attention
and, therefore, disengaged. The two learners who were busy with the question
decided to give up and move one to the next question. Although the two learners
remaining in the group thoroughly elaborated on their calculation, their method was
inappropriate. They lacked support but they justified their incorrect method
mathematically and agreed as they compiled their answers. A lot of time was wasted
because not all learners paid attention to the activity. There was no appropriate answer
to this question and there was little co-generation. The cognitive level of these learners
was interactive with regards to the two co-operating learners and disengaged with
regards to the other two. Table 4.44 summarizes the analysis of question 16a2.
Table 4:44
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 16a2
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Agree, compiling answers, justify, elaborate, compare Interactive
Model 4 question 16b read as follows:
16. Consider the synthesis of water as shown in Model 3. A container is filled with 10.0
g of H2 and 5.0 g of O2.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
190
b. Which reactant is present in excess, and what mass of that reactant remains after
the reaction is complete? Show your work.
Soon after reading the question, the reader lamented, “because our answer to 16a is
wrong … we can’t do this”. The learners admitted that their answer to question 16a
was incorrect, but they had not told the teacher. This indicates that the learners were
not well experienced in learning using POGIL. They were not aware that they should
ask the teacher when they encounter challenges. The cognitive level, in this case, is
passive because they just read the question and the other listened and did nothing
else. The learners were in the passive mode for a while before reverting to the previous
question 16a2.
Second attempt to model 4 question 16a2
Question: What mass of water can be produced? Show your work.
After realizing that they could not proceed with the activity before answering question
16a2, the learners attempted the question a second time. Some group members were
not attentive to the question. One learner said, “So, we are only going to use the molar
mass of O2 because it is the limiting reactant?”. A second learner responded, “yes, we
use the ratio of
O2: H2O” is 1: 2 from the equation,
0,16: x from the data”
and other learner shouted, “we cross-multiply, so x = 2x0,16” “So, x = 0, 32 moles of
H2O.
To get the mass of water, we use the formula n = 𝑚
𝑀, 0,32=
𝑚
18, m = 0,32 x 18 = 5,76g”
Although the learners jumped back to a previous question, they elaborated on it quite
well. They used the appropriate ratio to compare and find the number of moles of H2O.
They proceeded and did well to use the appropriate formula and substituted
appropriately to find the correct mass of H2O. They gave proper justification in each
case and compiled their answers cooperatively. Some group members may have
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
191
snuck away to consult with other groups or with the teacher or had worked it out
separately from the rest of the group members. Either way, what they did is acceptable
with POGIL because the basis of inquiry is that the learners should seek information
they do not have. Table 4.45 shows a summary of the analysis of question 16a2.
Table 4:45
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for question 16a2 second attempt
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Agree, compiling answers, justify, elaborate, compare Interactive
Model 4 question 16b read as follows:
Which reactant is present in excess, and what mass of that reactant remains
after the reaction is complete? Show your work.
The manager read the question while the rest of the group listened. They were
operating on the passive cognitive level. Soon after reading, one learner responded,
“the reactant in excess is hydrogen.” To which the other responded, “why is that?” and
the answer came from the third learner, “because it has the highest number of moles
than oxygen.” Yet another learner added that “they want the calculation, not the
reason. They want us to calculate the remaining mass.” The learners were challenged
again by this question and switched to the next question. “Reactant in excess is
hydrogen … the reason being?” Their answer that hydrogen was in excess was
appropriate, but they could not calculate the mass of the hydrogen that remained in
excess. They again did not ask the teacher for assistance and jumped the question.
The learners are at the interactive cognitive level because they exchanged ideas.
However, they did not answer the question correctly.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
192
Extension Questions
Model 4 extension question (a) read like this:
18cm3 of 0,25moldm-3 solution of H2SO4 reacted with 23cm3 of NaOH of concentration
0,35 moldm-3.
a. Write a balanced equation of this reaction.
The group was disengaged at this stage. Only one learner worked on the question.
The learner jumped to answer the question before carefully reading the entire
question. As a result, she did not follow the instructions on the question. After a while,
she realized the first question and said, “so we’re supposed to balance and write the
balanced equation”. She wrote down:
H2SO4 + NaOH NaSO4 + H2O
She did not balance it correctly, as the formula for sodium sulphate is incorrect. At this
stage, the cognitive level was constructive since she was generating her own ideas.
A moment later, the rest of the group members reappeared and asked, “which
question are we?” The reply was “… here, I haven’t balanced the equation yet”. The
response was “put 2 on the NaOH and another 2 on the water then it will balance.”
Eventually, the equation was balanced after correcting the formula for sodium
sulphate. The cognitive level for this first extension question was interactive since
learners shared their knowledge in getting the answer as shown in table 4.46.
Table 4:46
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for third extension question
Activities Cognitive level
Image
justify, elaborate, reflection, challenge Interactive
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
193
Model 4 extension question (b) read like this:
18cm3 of 0,25moldm-3 solution of H2SO4 reacted with 23cm3 of NaOH of concentration
0,35 moldm-3.
b. Calculate the number of moles of H2SO4 .
The reader read the question, but it appears like there was no one listening to her.
She started copying the question and reading it aloud, “so the formula is c= 𝑛
𝑉 so
we have 0,25moles…. So, 0,25 = 𝑛
18𝑥10−3 ; n = 4,5x10-3 moles H2SO4. The learner
who did the first question appropriately completed this question on her own. The
rest of the group members were silent or had moved away. Her actions were
constructive although not interactive. The rest of the group members were doing
other things or discussing other question off-camera. Figure 4.47 shows the
response.
Table 4:47
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for first extension question
Activities Cognitive level
Image
justify, copy, elaborate, reflection, challenge, doing
other things,
Constructive,
disengaged
Model 4 extension question (c) read like this:
18cm3 of 0,25moldm-3 solution of H2SO4 reacted with 23cm3 of NaOH of concentration
0,35 moldm-3.
c. Calculate the number of moles of NaOH.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
194
The group was working cooperatively at this stage. One learner asked, “We use the
same formula?” Another responded saying, “Yes, it is the same method we use.” Then
they started writing the formula, “c= 𝑛
𝑉 so 0,35moles…. So, 0,35 =
𝑛
23𝑥10−3 ; n =
8,05x10-3 moles”. The learners did the appropriate substitution and got the correct
answer. They worked as follows. Table 4.48 shows learners’ response to extension
question (c)
Table 4:48
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for extension question (c).
Activities Cognitive level
Image
justify, elaborate, reflection, challenge, argue Interactive
Model 4 extension question (d) read like this:
18cm3 of 0,25moldm-3 solution of H2SO4 reacted with 23cm3 of NaOH of concentration
0,35 moldm-3.
d. Which of the two, H2SO4 or NaOH was in excess?
The learners were initially challenged by the question and disengaged for a while.
Later, they came back to the question saying “this is simple guys, we have H2SO4
reacting with NaOH. What is the ratio?” The other learner said, “it’s 1:2”. The
learners agreed to use the ratio to identify the limiting reactant. The learners went
on to write down the substances sulphuric acid and sodium hydroxide. They put
the ratios underneath and used the ratio technique to calculate the number of
moles of NaOH needed. After the calculation, they reasoned that the number of
moles of NaOH needed is greater than the available number of moles. They
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
195
appropriately concluded that sulphuric acid was in excess and sodium hydroxide
was the limiting reactant. Table 4.49 shows a summary of the analysis of extension
question d.
Table 4:49
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for extension question (d)
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Reading, listening, challenge, agree, reason Passive,
interactive
Model 4 extension question (e) read like this:
18cm3 of 0,25moldm-3 solution of H2SO4 reacted with 23cm3 of NaOH of concentration
0,35 moldm-3.
e. How many grams of H2O was produced in this reaction?
The calculation for this question was done by only three groups. One of the groups
asked the question, “which moles do we use here?” A learner responded, “the moles
of sulphuric acid from question (b)”. The other learner said, “Really? Because it is in
excess right?” Yet another learner argued that, “No, we must use the moles of the
limiting reactant”. The rest of the learners said, “Oh yes, the limiting reactant limits the
number of moles produced.” It appears that at this stage, the learners in this particular
group had mastered the concept of a limiting reactant. The learners showed
awareness around when to use the excess or the limiting reactant. Thus, their
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
196
understanding of the concept had reached the application stage of the learning cycle
(section 2.5.1).
The learners proceeded to use the ratios of NaOH: H2O which was 2:2 from the
balanced equation. They correctly calculated the number of moles of H2O and found
8.05x10-3 moles. Thereafter they used the formula n= 𝑚
𝑀 , did appropriate substitution
and got the correct answer of 0,1467g.
The discussion of the learners and their development of the response suggests that
they were working at the interactive cognitive level. They constructed knowledge as a
group. Table 4.50 shows summary of the analysis of extension question (e)
Table 4:50
Learners’ activities, cognitive level, and the image for extension question (e)
Activities Cognitive level
Image
Reading, listening, argue, agree, reason Interactive
4.5.5 Discussion of intervention results
The analysis of the intervention was done with the aid of ATLAS.ti software for
qualitative data analysis. The videos recorded during the intervention were loaded
onto the software. Code groups which were previously prepared following the modified
ICAP framework were used to characterise events that happened during the lessons
(chapter 2 describes the ICAP framework modified to ICAPD for the current study).
The summarized findings of all the activities of the learners during the intervention are
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
197
tabled below. The code represents the activity of the learners, the frequency
represents the number of times the activity was noticed, and the code groups
represent the classification of the activity according to the ICAPD framework. Some of
the actions of the learners such as “match” or “absentminded” which were not noticed
during the analysis were therefore removed from the table of results to focus on what
was observed. Table 4.51 shows a summary of the learner’s engagement from the
video analysis of some of the selected videos based on the ICAPD framework.
Table 4:51
Video analysis of the intervention adapted from the ICAP framework.
Learner behaviour Frequency Code Groups
Copy 1 Active
Highlight 1 Active
Repeat 1 Active
Brainstorming 7 Constructive
Reason 5 Constructive
Doing other things 6 Disengaged
Agreement 33 Interactive
Aha moment 2 Interactive
Arguments 14 Interactive
Challenge 21 Interactive
Comparing 6 Interactive
Compiling ideas 30 Interactive
Elaborate 29 Interactive
Justify 21 Interactive
Reflection 11 Interactive
Listening to reader 35 Passive
Reading for group 36 Passive
The passive level, as indicated on the table, was mainly because learners were
working in a group. So, the reader was supposed to read the question for the group
and the whole group was supposed to listen to the reading. This was consistent with
the cooperative learning characteristic of POGIL. Each question was read and listened
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
198
to in the same way except for the one noticed occasion when the reader was reading
without anyone listening to her because they were distracted.
Disengagement was noticed on six occasions when learners were doing other things
not related to the activity at hand. It must be stressed that it was not clear if the learners
were really disengaged or rather working on the problem off camera. The camera
could not record what they were doing at those moments. There is a possibility they
may have been working because the learners would at times come up with the answer
to the question. Table 4.53 was produced from table 4.52 as a summary of the findings
based on the ICAPD framework.
Table 4:52
Summary of results for video analysis of the intervention
Cognitive level Number of times
(I) Interactive 167
(C) Constructive 12
(A) Active 3
(P) Passive 71
(D) Disengaged 6
The active level of engagement consists mainly of hands-on activities such a practical
activity or physical projects. In this case, the activities were written work which only
had a few areas for active work such as copying, highlighting or repeating. As a result,
the active level was not prevalent in the observed current class activities.
The constructive level focuses on the state of construction of knowledge in the mind
of the learner and the development of mental constructs in the mind of the learner. In
this case the ICAPD framework considered the constructive level to be when mental
models were developed by an individual learner. Such actions were observed in the
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
199
current study when learners were brainstorming, and sometimes reasoning to defend
their answer. Examples of working at the constructive level could have been displayed
during the intervention but because the learners worked as groups, all the constructive
actions translated into the interactive level.
The interactive level is composed of all group-related collective actions done by
learners as they co-generate knowledge. The intervention during this study was
characterized by collective work. The learners literally thought as teams and spoke
their ideas to the group without doing anything else separately apart from the few
occasions mentioned earlier. As a result, the activities of the learners were collective
and fell into the interactive level. They did not have discussions like “what did you do?”
but rather “what do you think?”. They worked at the same station and made mistakes,
faced challenges, corrected each other, and elaborated on their answers collectively.
They built upon each other’s ideas and moulded the answers until perfect answers
were produced. They achieved more as a team than they would have been able to do
individually.
The POGIL intervention witnessed predominantly interactive, constructive, and active
levels of engagement. These fall under the active learning method. During active
learning, the learners are performing high order thinking skills such analysis,
synthesis, critical thinking, and problem solving. This was evident in the intervention
when learners analysed questions and solved challenging questions by brainstorming
and justifying their ideas. They did not give answers without providing reasons for why
they thought it was the appropriate answer. Such a method of teaching is active in the
sense that learners pay close attention to the classwork and think deeply and respond
with justification as they elaborate on their responses as a team. Learners collectively
generated knowledge, and each member of the group partook in the discussion and
actively developed understanding. This approach is a result of the POGIL method
where carefully designed worksheets guided learners through a series of activities that
helped them to develop their own understanding using reason. The teacher facilitates
and guides learners when they get stuck but don’t provide them with the answers.
Instead, they provide guiding questions that lead learners to the answers so that they
own the knowledge they develop. This was evident during the intervention, which was
far removed from the traditional teacher-centred approach as the teacher was rarely
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
200
involved in the activities done by the learners except for those few moments mentioned
previously.
On one occasion, I noticed that the teacher’s presence as they came to check on the
group, seemed to in fact disturb the learners. After the teacher was gone, the learners
remained unfocused for a while before going back to their work. In this regard, I
suggest teachers should only intervene when they have been called by the learners.
I also noticed that some learners never called the teacher, even when they were stuck,
and that they eventually got the answer to the problem. They possibly got help from
the other groups or members of the same group. It is acceptable either way because
it is the same group and the whole class is a group as well. This is also good in the
sense that it develops inquiry skills in the learners for them to find answers wherever
they can find them. That is the final aim of all research.
I noticed one limitation concerning the filming of the intervention. It was a particularly
good idea to capture video footage of what learners were doing in the class. This
worked very well except for the fact that some learners did their discussions off-
camera and re-joined the group to give their answers on camera. There were also
moments when things were done off-camera and I had to classify them as
‘disengaged’ because I did not see or hear what learners were doing. I suggest that in
addition to the camera recording the groupwork, another camera watching the general
movements, gestures and activities of the group should be provided for in future. That
camera would record any movement to and from the group and activities such as the
group assigning specific members to do a certain question on the group’s behalf. The
extra camera could also record the gestures of the learners during the class, as well
as the movements of the teacher.
4.6 Results from interview of the teachers
The POGIL teachers were initially trained to teach using POGIL during a three-day
workshop prior to the commencement of the study. They went to their respective high
schools and practiced using POGIL in their classes. Among those who managed to
use POGIL are the two teachers who participated in the current study with one of their
POGIL classes. The researcher visited their schools to support them during the
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
201
training of their learners and to observe these teachers use POGIL during their
teaching. This was done to ensure that the teachers were indeed able to use POGIL
and their learners were ready to learn using POGIL in the intervention. Each teacher
was interviewed for about 10 minutes in their respective offices soon after the
intervention following the interview schedule in appendix 13. The interviews were
subsequently transcribed by the researcher (see appendix 16 for teacher A and
appendix 15 for teacher B).
In the following paragraphs, I present the results in the discussion format without
distinguishing between the two teachers to enhance interpretation. I saw it fit to
discuss the results from the interview of the teachers this way because their responses
concurred in all questions except for one. Presenting the results for each teacher
separately may have sounded like repetition.
The first question for the interview was “How can you explain to someone what is
POGIL?”
The teachers seemed to be aware of POGIL since they explained during the interview
that POGIL is a method where we “use group work and learners are grouped in groups
of four, sometimes six, whereby they have different roles”. Another teacher said
POGIL is a method where “learners do teamwork and help each other”. This appears
to indicate that the teachers understood POGIL and, they explained what they did to
implement POGIL in training their learners. It appears the teachers were also
interested in teaching using POGIL since they said “POGIL is a wonderful and easy
method”.
The second question was “During POGIL, how can you explain the actions done by
the learners?”
Both teachers acknowledged that the learners are “active and each one of them
participate actively” during POGIL. The learners, however, can “help each other in the
process and solve even the difficult questions.” According to the teachers, their
learners are actively engaged in their activities and helped each other. This a good
practice for cooperative learning of which POGIL is one such method.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
202
The next question was “Okay can you briefly explain how you implemented POGIL in
your classes?”
The teachers suggest that grouping learners according to performance “is the best
method” because it “gives time to attend to the slow learners” and that the “fast
learners will do a lot of work and go from one activity to another”. They felt that there
would be fewer disturbances if the fast learners are grouped together. One of the
teachers, however, indicated that they will not be teaching only the slow learners
because the fast learners also asked questions in sections where they did not reach
agreement. They indicated that the slow learners are less noisy but also give sound
reasons for their ideas and that the “slow learners also participated actively”. One of
the teachers arranged her learners “according to their friends and work very well”. It
seems there is no best way of arranging learners in groups. Whichever method works
for a particular group can be used in that group.
Both teachers followed the POGIL guidelines for being a facilitator of the learning
process. They provided the worksheets at the front of their respective classrooms and
allowed learners to manage the whole process. The teachers signalled the start and
end of each activity, while the learners collected the worksheets and went through
them as required in the POGIL method. The teachers moved around their respective
classes guiding learners in terms of time management, challenges. and roles. In the
process, they asked probing questions to particular groups and the class as a whole.
In some instances, the teachers sent the spokesperson of one group to assist another
group that may have been struggling. At the end of each activity, the teachers allowed
learners to report their answers by writing them on provided charts. The teachers then
conducted a class discussion to correct any errors and strengthen the learners’
understanding of concepts.
The next question was “How did your learners respond to POGIL?”
Both teachers noted that their learners “are very excited to use POGIL” and that they
sometimes request the teacher to teach them using POGIL. The reasons behind this
were that “POGIL makes them to be free and active”. The learners are free to talk and
“everyone is alert and participating actively.” This was in contrast to the lecture
method, where learners are supposed to be quiet, and some end up sleeping during
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
203
the lesson. Both teachers noted that their Grade 10 learners are more excited about
POGIL than their Grade 11s. They suggested that “Grade 10s are energetic and want
to be all over the place” while Grades 11 or 12 “are like, this is for kids”. This suggests
that the Grades 11s and 12s were not exposed to POGIL in Grade 10 and are now
faced with a lot of work to cover. They therefore perceive POGIL activities as child’s
play. The learners’ excitement during POGIL suggest that they paid attention to what
they were learning. A method which draws learners’ excitement and attention is likely
to yield good results because they will remain focussed on the work.
The next question was “During the POGIL lessons, what can you comment about the
activities done by the learners? Were the activities giving the learners attention or were
they too easy?”
The teachers noted that learners participated actively during easy activities. The
teachers know that the first activities used in POGIL are supposed to be “simple real-
life experiences”. This helps learners to understand the concept before they apply it to
the subject content. When learners do “difficult topics, they are passive and need a lot
of help there”. This suggests that the worksheet must not be too hard because the
learners will disengage. Conversely, when doing easy topics “each learner will be
working quietly on their own.” Activities that are too easy do not support POGIL
because each learner will be working individually. POGIL worksheets should aim for
a balance between the two. The teacher ultimately understands the needs of their
learners and acknowledged that the POGIL worksheets used during the intervention
were neither too easy nor too hard. This kept the learners engaged throughout the
intervention.
The next question was “So, as a teacher, what is your role during POGIL lessons?
The teachers understood that their role in the POGIL lesson is that of facilitators since
they “just making sure that learning is going on … provide the worksheets and monitor
the time … observe that there is order”. On rare occasions, the teachers assisted
learners when they faced difficulties by directing them to the right path. The teachers
acknowledged that they monitored the progress of the learners and sometimes asked
the “spokesperson of one group to go and assist another group” or to get assistance
from another group. The teachers, therefore, were “checking if the learners had
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
204
problems and if they were working in groups”. The teacher provided advice, direction
and motivation to the groups when they moved around the class. This view is in line
with the POGIL philosophy that the approach must be learner-centred and not teacher-
centred.
The following question was “When you implemented POGIL how did the learners
perform in that topic?”
Both teachers acknowledged that when they teach using POGIL their “learners
perform much better than when they use lecture method”. They wished to “use POGIL
in the whole syllabus” if they had all the worksheets because “POGIL encourages
teamwork and more participation”. The teachers also noted that during POGIL the
learners “cannot go outside of what they are learning, and they are kept busy.” This
suggests that the teachers appear to be happy with POGIL as a teaching method in
their classes.
The next question was “Do you think your learners, if given a choice, would prefer
POGIL teaching over other teaching approaches?”
One of the teachers mentioned that some learners asked their science teacher to tell
the mathematics teacher “to teach them using POGIL”. This suggests that the learners
are “already motivated to learn using POGIL in other subjects”. All that is missing are
the POGIL worksheets and the training for the teachers of the other subjects as the
learners are already trained and are motivated and willing to use POGIL in other
subjects.
The next question was “When using POGIL do you think the learners are easier to
control than when using direct teaching method?”
The teachers acknowledge that it is a challenge to control learners during POGIL
activities. They noted that “strict control is needed during POGIL than during lecture
method” because the learners can be noisy and that “the learners make so much noise
which disturbs other groups and other classes”. This is partly because learners
expressing their ideas to the group during POGIL sessions, “cannot just bring the
answer without reason”. They must support their answers with reasons. They argue
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
205
to support their answer until they are proven wrong or otherwise. If they do not agree,
they ask other groups or the teacher.
The next interview question was “What about the time management?”
One of the teachers suggested that they “initially thought POGIL was time-consuming”
but with experience discovered that what “my learners do with POGIL will be
permanent”. So, they will not repeat that part. The teacher noted that “with the lecture
method I will repeat it like another three or four times” and still the learners will not
perform as they do when they learn using POGIL. This teacher seems to have
analysed the time consumed per topic and not per lesson. The other teacher noted
that POGIL is “very time-consuming but at the end of the day you are able to do a lot.”
The second teacher might not have viewed POGIL in the same way the first teacher
did.
The last question was “Do you think you will continue using POGIL in your lessons?”
One teacher commented that she thinks “POGIL is the way to go in all subjects”. She
mentioned that her school “principal came to visit my class … and was very excited”.
She explained that the principal worked with the learners in one of the groups and
“also understood science”. This teacher was given permission to continue using
POGIL in her school regardless of the noise associated with it, possibly because the
principal saw the benefit and understood that the method requires learners to talk and
argue.
The results from the interview with the two POGIL-trained teachers suggest that they
both know POGIL, and they had trained their learners and used POGIL before the
intervention. They both noted that their learners participated actively and were not
disengaged during the intervention. The learners also worked interactively doing
cooperative learning as opposed to individual learning and came up with one set of
answers for the group, as opposed to individual answers. The teachers noted that the
POGIL worksheets were neither too easy nor too hard and this allowed learners to
remain focused on the activities because the work was challenging, but not
excessively so. Both teachers played the role of facilitator during the intervention
allowing for a learner-centred approach rather than a teacher-centred one. They sent
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
206
spokespeople to other groups to assist them or to get assistance, while in some cases
the teachers directed learners by asking guiding questions and not simply telling them
answers like in the lecture method. Both teachers noted that POGIL resulted in noisy
classes since learners argue to justify their answers. The teachers did not agree about
the time management aspect. One teacher felt that it was time-consuming because
the topic that had already been taught using the lecture method would have to be
repeated. The other argued that POGIL is not time-consuming because what you
teach will be permanent.
In the end, both teachers felt that POGIL is a good teaching approach that leads to
improved understanding, reasoning, and performance. They both promised to
continue teaching using POGIL because they witnessed better results in their classes.
They both wished to have POGIL worksheets to use in all the science topics. The
teachers also recommended for POGIL worksheets to be available for other subjects
as well because their learners were excited to learn using POGIL as opposed to the
lecture method.
4.7 Results from the focus group interview of learners
The learners who participated in the POGIL intervention group were initially trained by
their teachers at their respective schools. They had already used POGIL to learn other
science topics in the same year.
The first question was: "You have been taught using POGIL, what can you comment
about the method?”
Learners acknowledged that they were familiar with POGIL because they defined it as
a method where learners “work in groups discussing classwork”. Others identified
POGIL as a method where learners “read together and answer together”. Yet other
learners noted that POGIL uses “examples which give clues on how to approach
particular questions” which makes science “easier” by using “real life” examples. Some
learners recognised that one of POGIL’s advantages was that it guided them and gave
them clues on how to approach problems. The learners indicated that POGIL is an
“interesting and funny” method used to “learn difficult topics”. The learners observed
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
207
that POGIL was used when teaching abstract topics. So, they associate it with difficult
topics.
A follow-up question to this was “So, is it a good method that you work in groups during
POGIL?”
To this question, the learners commented that with POGIL they can “solve difficult
questions without the help of the teacher”. Some commented that “the method shows
the steps to answer the questions”. The learners also commented that in POGIL they
“are free to talk many things and help each other.” And that “no one hears” their “wrong
answers” except the people in their own group. This suggests that some learners may
be afraid of participating in class because of fear of being laughed at. With POGIL they
will be free to speak out, express their views and participate in arguments with other
learners. They commended POGIL as it allowed them to “help each other without
laughing at one another.” Some experienced POGIL as “good because we
understand” and that it made them “think of why this answer is correct … to say the
reason”. The learners are aware that they must reason before they write down an
answer and not just give one without justification. Arguments develop when learners
are debating and giving reasons for their responses, often resulting in the noisy
classes that are typical for a POGIL session.
The next question was “Do you think you understand science better or less? Explain.”
The learners commented that the POGIL “method makes science to be easy” showing
a change in perception from initially finding science difficult, to viewing it as easy. The
learners felt that they could now “answer hard questions” and indicated that the
“POGIL method is easy because we start with easy activities”. It appears as if learners
who are taught using POGIL develop metacognition since they were able to describe
the methodology of how they are taught and the difficulty level of questions they can
answer. The learners acknowledged that “in the past science was difficult to
understand” but now “it is easy because of the POGIL method.” They also indicated
that because of POGIL they learnt “to be clever” and can now think before writing the
answer “instead of guessing”. POGIL helped the learners “to understand science
better” and improved their “reasoning capacity”. The learners observed the available
information and used the data to choose the appropriate formula or method to use.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
208
This means they were aware of their thought processes. The learners were able to
see what they had, how they were thinking and how much they had improved in
reasoning because of the POGIL method.
Another follow-up question was “You spoke about that there are easy examples in
POGIL activities. How do examples help you to understand science better?”
The learners responded that “The examples show me how science is related to the
car parts … and to the clothes that we wear”. The learners explained that “wearing two
shoes, two socks, one pants, one shirt” are “ratios like two moles of hydrogen react
with 1 moles of oxygen” to produce two moles of water. They could reason and assess
that one “cannot put on three shoes at the same time”. This means that the learners
have developed reasoning and understanding because of exposure to POGIL
methodology. The learners seemed to be thinking critically which is necessary for
problem-solving.
The following question was “Do you think you shall perform better in the second test
than in the first test? Remember you wrote 2 tests?”
The learners expected better marks after being taught using POGIL because they felt
they knew more and “understand and think about the answer” before writing it down.
The learners mentioned that they “can now reason and know how to find the limiting
reactant” and attributed this to the POGIL method. The learners commented
confidently that with “POGIL lessons we understand all things” and said that they
expected to pass the post-intervention test. The learners appreciated the “step-by-
step” teaching as they felt it helped them “understand better” when taught that way.
They believed that the POGIL method develops their understanding by gradually
moving from the easy concepts to the harder concepts.
The next question was “Do you expect to do further studies in science because of the
use of POGIL?”
The students believed that their marks were high enough for them to enrol in
“engineering because by using POGIL we will pass” or “do medicine … or become a
dentist because POGIL will give us high passes”. The POGIL method seemingly
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
209
developed confidence in the learners as they demonstrated metacognition and were
even considering long-term goals such as specific fields and careers they might
pursue.
The last question was “What about using POGIL in other subjects? Do you think it will
be a good idea?”
The learners wished to “use POGIL in mathematics” so that their “marks will go up”.
They noticed that “mathematics has a lot of measurements and objects” and it is
possible to use POGIL in mathematics. The learners acknowledged that currently “the
mathematics marks are the lowest”. They believed that their marks could improve by
using POGIL. This also showed that the learners had confidence that the method could
be used in mathematics.
The results from the interview suggest that the learners were already familiar with
POGIL as a learner-centred approach. The learners acknowledged that during POGIL
they work in groups, discussing and solving questions as teams, without feeling
embarrassed. They noticed that POGIL activities were structured to progress from
easy, familiar concepts to more difficult concepts. The learners commended POGIL
for making science easy, interesting, funny, and using real-life examples which made
them understand science better. In POGIL, learners should support their answers with
sound reasoning. They acknowledged that POGIL increased their reasoning capacity
and improved their argumentation abilities as they had to reason with their peers. They
noticed that they had to think about their answer before presenting it to the group. This
suggests that learners develop metacognition through the use of POGIL. The learners
also noticed that POGIL is helpful in abstract topics where in-depth critical thinking
and reasoning are important for understanding the concepts. The use of real-life
examples suggests that science is not isolated from daily experiences, thereby making
it more attainable.
The learners detected an increase in their performance and understanding of science.
They attributed the improvement to the step-by-step procedures used in POGIL that
develops their understanding. This suggests that the learners improved their critical
thinking skills in arguments and develop other process skills such as communication,
management, teamwork and problem-solving, information processing, and
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
210
assessment. The learners further assessed that they would qualify for tertiary studies
in medicine and engineering because of their improved performance and
understanding of science. They wished to be taught mathematics using POGIL
because they recognised that they had low marks in that subject. The learners
developed metacognition and their process skills improved. They attribute this
development to the use of POGIL in their science classes.
4.8 Results from the observation of POGIL lessons
The POGIL lessons were observed by the researcher using the observation schedule
in appendix 21. The observations were aimed at identifying how both teachers
managed their respective classes and how the learners engaged during the lessons.
In this section I discussed the results from the observation of both teachers, starting
with how they arranged their learners to the actual intervention. I then discussed the
results of the observation of both classes without distinguishing between them. I saw
this as the best approach to avoid repetition since most of the observations were quite
similar.
Results from observation of teachers
The teacher at school A grouped learners according to their abilities and considering
gender balance. The teacher created 4 groups composed of four learners and one
group with six learners. The total participants at school A were 22, though the class
had around 36 learners in total. The rest of the learners did not give consent to
participate in the study and as such, they were separately grouped, and their data was
not used for this study. Each of the groups of four had two boys and two girls. The
third group was made up of four girls and two boys.
The teacher at school B grouped the learners according to abilities, behaviour, and
gender. There were about 40 learners in this class but the participants for this study
were 26. There were six groups in total; five of which were composed of four learners
and one group composed of six learners. The group with six learners had three boys
and three girls, and as with school A the other 3 groups of four had two boys and two
girls. There were two unique groups in this class, one was made of four girls and the
other of four boys. The teacher explained that the girls were the most hardworking and
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
211
fastest learners in the class and were all among the class’ top ten. The teacher
explained that if any of these learners were put in another group, that they would likely
do all the work by themselves. The girls were said to be friends and understood each
other well as they worked at almost the same pace. They were competing for better
grades amongst each other, and they also studied together. Their friendship meant
that they would communicate well and quickly do their class activities. This group
indeed completed the activities earlier than the rest of the groups. The boys group had
one high performing boy who was the best in the class. The teacher said the other
three boys were among the lowest performers in the class. The teacher commented
that all four learners in the group were naughty boys who would harass or bully any
other learners or group members if they were grouped with others. The teacher
considered that this was the best way to group them because at least results would
come out, though most of the work would be done by the brightest learner. The teacher
did not separate the naughty learners, which may be inconsistent with the POGIL way
of grouping learners.
The teachers provided a table at the front of the classroom where the worksheets were
piled up according to the relevant activities. The teacher would ask the document
controller to collect worksheets for each member of the group. Each of the worksheets
had time allocation and the learners made sure to keep up. The teacher made sure
that the learners kept up to the allocated time by checking on them now and then. The
teacher would remind the group managers to check the clock, which was placed in the
front of the classroom. The teacher provided a stand for each group and instructed the
learners to place their cell phone on it and to record videos of each activity they did.
After each activity, the learners would transfer the video onto the laptop provided by
the researcher. Figure 4.85 shows the stand used during video recording.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
212
Figure 4:85
Diagram of the stand used by learners to record videos.
The teacher moved around checking the group activities and helping learners to
discover the hidden concepts. At times, the teacher asked leading questions and then
the learners figured out where they went off track. If the teacher saw that the learners
were going astray, they asked key questions that would make learners reflect on the
way they were doing the work. The learners spontaneously developed concepts and
therefore owned the knowledge because they discovered it for themselves. The
probing questions acted as a guide so that the learners re-directed their thoughts
properly.
After each activity, the teacher asked the recorders to bring and put up the poster
which represented the work done by the group. The teacher would then look at each
question and do revision of the task. When there were wrong answers from any group,
the teacher asked a learner from another group to explain the appropriate answer to
the class. Sometimes the teacher sent a member of the groups that had finished earlier
to help members of other groups who may have been struggling. There were no
instances where the teachers explained the answer to the learners because the
teachers maintained the role of facilitator of the learning process. The activities were
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
213
easy to understand and carefully designed to effect concept development,
understanding, and developing reasoning skills in the minds of the learners.
The teachers made sure that each group was working on the activity by checking their
progress regularly while moving around the classroom. During that process, the
teachers questioned the learners on their progress or asked guiding questions where
learners needed help. In some instances, the teachers assigned a learner from one
group to assist another group for a short while. The teachers always reminded learners
of time-keeping by saying “please ‘managers’ check your time”, because the manager
is the time-keeper during POGIL activities. They asked regular probing questions to
direct the learner, such as, “how many atoms of hydrogen make up one molecule of
water?” In other instances, they asked, “how many oxygen atoms are needed to make
one water molecule?” Sometimes the teachers asked, “if you have 2 atoms of
hydrogen, how many water molecules can you make?” Such questions were directed
to specific groups, or to the class depending on the needs of the learners as assessed
by the teachers. The learners were familiar with the POGIL approach and understood
that they were not expected to answer those questions, only in their respective groups.
Both teachers followed the guidelines of the POGIL method, by guiding learners as
facilitators and not telling them answers.
At the end of each activity, the teachers asked the groups, “let us have the ‘reporters’
of each group come to the front to write the answers of their groups on the charts”.
Each group had their chart put up in front of the class, identified with their group
number. Sometimes the teachers allowed the learners to write on their chart while still
in their respective groups and paste the chart afterwards. The teachers timed the
learners as they wrote on the chart just like during a class activity. When all the charts
were on the walls, the teachers went through all the questions one at a time, comparing
the answers on all the charts. Where the answers were all correct, the teachers
complimented the learners and moved on to the next question. Where one or more
groups had a wrong answer, the teacher asked questions such as, “what data is given
for this question?”. Sometimes they asked, “which formula can best be used for this
calculation?”. This time, the learners answered. The teacher targeted the groups who
got the correct answers so that they could explain to the other groups. After asking
several probing questions, the teacher directed the question to the groups that got an
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
214
inappropriate answer, “so which method is the correct one form what we see on the
charts?” At this stage, most of the learners identified their mistakes and choose a
correct answer among the displayed answers. Sometimes the teachers asked the
groups to identify where mistakes had occurred on the wrong answers.
When starting a new activity, the teachers encouraged learners to change roles. This
was uncomfortable for some learners and the teacher respected this. Such learners
feared the roles of manager, spokesperson, or reader. Noise was a challenge in both
classes, but the teachers tried to minimize it saying, “there is too much noise,
‘managers’ control your groups”. This helped reduce the noise, but it persisted as the
learners discussed the activities. Time management was a challenge since the
learners were of mixed abilities. Some groups finished earlier than others and the
teacher occupied them by sending them to assist the slower groups.
Both teachers appropriately facilitated their respective classes as recommended by
the guidelines of the POGIL method. They both guided their learners well and
managed their classes according to the expectations of the method.
Results from observation of learners
The two POGIL classes were overly excited when the teachers announced that they
should go into groups and be ready to learn using POGIL. They started choosing the
roles of their choices and identified their favourite group members, based on previous
sessions where they had worked together. The teacher made sure that the learners
were in the right groups and they were reminded of their roles through a five-minute
question and answer session. The learners were then assigned their roles in the first
activity.
The ‘document controllers’ collected worksheets for their group and distributed them
among the group members at the instruction of the teacher. There was one ‘document
controller´ per group. The manager or the reader read the questions while the rest of
the group paid attention in the ‘passive’ mode. After reading, the learners engaged in
the ‘constructive’ mode where they individually constructed their own understanding
of the question. They presented their answers to the group, one at a time. They
supported their answers with reasoning and explained the justification for their answer.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
215
The other learners in the group asked questions to the one answering the question,
so that he/she could explain and clarify the reasoning behind the answer. The
manager asked questions such as, “do we agree?”. The manager would not accept
the answer until all group members agreed. When they were convinced that the
answer was correct based on reasoning, they agreed with the answer. At this stage,
the ‘spokesperson’ then wrote the answer that will represent the group. This stage in
the ‘interactive’ stage where learners collectively construct knowledge through
discussion.
Under the control of the ‘manager’, each group went through the activities writing on
their worksheets, with the ‘reader’ also writing on the poster for display at a later stage.
All the learners came to agree on the answers before writing them down. Learners
who needed clarification asked and got assistance from the members of the group.
The learners were seen concentrating and reading through things a second or third
time when they came across a challenging question. In instances when one of the
learners discovered the solution and shared it with the group, they would all shout out
the “Aha” moment. Sometimes the learners in some group would remain stuck until
the teacher noticed them, or they would ask for assistance from the teacher, who
would just ask a leading question whereafter excited tended to fill the group. After each
activity, the learners pasted their posters on the wall and the teacher revised the work
via the worksheet, comparing all the answers on the posters.
The learners in both classes actively worked through the POGIL worksheets assisting
each other eagerly. They played their respective POGIL roles well and helped each
other to understand the topic.
4.9 Chapter summary
Chapter 4 was the discussion of results. I started by presenting and discussing the
results from the pre-intervention test. This was followed by the presentation and
discussion of the post-intervention test results. I discussed the ratio questions in the
pre-intervention test and the post-intervention test. Thereafter, a presentation of the
comparison of the pre-intervention test and post-intervention test results of all tests
followed by a comparison of the ratio questions. The presentation and discussion of
the intervention results was done. Finally, the discussion of the results from the
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
216
interviews of the teachers and the learners, as well as the lesson observation, was
presented. The chapter concluded with the chapter summary. The next chapter
discusses the findings from the results presented in chapter four.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
217
5 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction
This chapter commences with the presentation of the overview of the study. The
summary of the findings with respect to the research questions follows thereafter.
The chapter then proceeds to the concluding remarks and limitations of the study.
This is followed by the possible contributions of the study and the recommendations
thereof.
5.2 Overview of the study
The purpose of this study was to explore how using the POGIL way of teaching in
stoichiometry influences (or not) Grade 11 learners’ reasoning. In the introduction
of this study, I indicated the prevailing Grade 12 results for the past five years, which
showed low pass rates in physical sciences. I also indicated that the Department of
Education recommends the use of the inquiry approach for teaching science
(Department of Basic Education (DoBE NCS-CAPS), 2016). Previous research has
revealed that the use of inquiry methods led to the improvement of learners’
achievement and understanding (Dudu & Vhurumuku, 2012; Mamombe,
Mathabathe, & Gaigher, 2020; Moog & Spencer, 2008). Problem-solving
techniques have been identified to yield a better understanding of science (Sunday,
Ibemenji, & Alamina, 2019), and those who taught mathematical skills improved
achievement in stoichiometry (Adigwe, 2013).
There seems to be no study undertaken to find out the influence of POGIL on
learners’ reasoning in the topic of stoichiometry. It is against this background that
the current study wanted to determine to what extent the POGIL way of teaching
influenced (or not) learners’ reasoning. Investigation of learners’ reasoning in
stoichiometry was achieved by answering the secondary research questions of this
pre-intervention test post-intervention test case study done at two township schools
in a district in Pretoria. The assumption was that if learners’ reasoning while solving
stoichiometric calculations is identified, it might be possible to find ways to assist
them in that topic. The following sub-research questions were answered:
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
218
• How do Grade 11 physical sciences learners engage and reason before
exposure to POGIL?
• How do POGIL-trained physical sciences teachers engage learners during
POGIL activities?
• How do Grade 11 physical sciences learners engage and reason during
stoichiometric POGIL activities?
• How do Grade 11 physical sciences learners engage and reason after exposure
to POGIL?
• What are the learners’ perceptions of POGIL as a teaching and learning
strategy?
• What are the teachers’ perceptions of POGIL as a teaching and learning
strategy?
The answers to these sub-research questions were used to answer the main
research question of the study which is:
How does POGIL influence (or not) learners’ reasoning about stoichiometry?
The learners’ initial reasoning was observed by analysing their pre-intervention test
scripts. This was followed by observing the learners’ engagement and reasoning
during the POGIL intervention. The teachers’ approach was also assessed during
the intervention to ascertain to what extent the POGIL approach was implemented
during the intervention. The learners’ reasoning after the intervention was observed
in the analysis of their post-intervention test scripts. The interviews of the teachers
and that of the learners revealed their respective perceptions of the POGIL way of
teaching.
The findings are presented and discussed according to the following themes:
• Learners’ reasoning before and after the intervention.
• Teachers’ engagement during POGIL intervention.
• Learners’ engagement and reasoning during the intervention.
• Learners’ and teacher’s perceptions of the POGIL way of teaching.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
219
5.3 Description of the findings
The previous paragraphs were a presentation of the overview of the study. The
following discussion focuses on the results obtained as well as how these results
were used to answer the secondary research questions, thereby providing an
answer to the primary research question.
5.3.1 Learners’ engagement and reasoning in the pre-intervention
test
The pre-intervention test was analysed based on how learners responded to the
tests regarding concept development and demonstration of their understanding, as
well as the level of critical thinking and reasoning involved. Because the pre-
intervention test was written individually, the analysis of the learners’ scripts
examined the extent of the Constructive component of the ICAP framework (Chi,
2011; Chi, et al., 2018). At the constructive stage, the learners individually generate
information beyond what is on the worksheet by providing justification, forming
hypotheses, and comparing ideas. At this stage, learners engage in critical
questions which do not have obvious answers. This is what the Department of Basic
Education calls the cognitive levels which reveal the extent to which the learner has
reasoned in solving the problem (Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report,
2016). See Table 3.2 for a detailed description of the cognitive levels according to
the DoBE.
In the pre-intervention test, the learners showed that they used mechanical
memorized responses without understanding and reasoning. During this test, a few
learners were able to complete easy single-step calculations, but most learners
failed to fully answer the more complex multi-step level 4 questions. The level 4
questions require a lot of analysis, application, evaluation, and creation, which form
the foundation of critical thinking and hence, the reasoning of the learner. The
learners did not show any considerable reasoning skills in the pre-intervention test.
Instead, most learners showed that they had novice ideas or elementary knowledge
and, therefore, a limited understanding of most questions. A few of the learners had
sufficient intermediate knowledge to answer the questions in the pre-intervention
test. The failure to answer multi-step complex questions means that they lacked the
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
220
necessary reasoning skills and understanding of how to solve such questions. As
such, most of the learners’ responses in the pre-intervention test were mainly level
1 which is the lowest cognitive level of reasoning (Department of Basic Education
[DoBE] Report, 2016) (see section 3.6.2). The low cognitive levels revealed by
learners in the pre-intervention test are in agreement with the previous pre-
intervention test post-intervention test studies where learners initially demonstrated
a low level of understanding (Koopman, 2017; Mamombe, Mathabathe, & Gaigher,
2020).
Where the learners demonstrated possession of some idea, they wrote down ideas
which they had memorized and sometimes they inappropriately did so. Moreover,
the learners failed basic tasks such as identifying the appropriate formula and
constants which we provided on the datasheet. In instances where they identified
the correct formula, they failed to use it appropriately. An example of such an
instance is when learners interchanged the mass of a substance with the molecular
mass of the same, indicating that their knowledge was not properly grounded. The
haphazard use of the formulae and its constituent constants served as a sign that
this was memorized knowledge and not based on conceptual understanding and
reasoning. They failed to write down the molecular formula of some basic chemical
substances like sodium hydroxide.
The pre-intervention test results show that the learners in the sample failed to
successfully solve tasks assessing low-level cognitive skills to such an extent that
even their recall was exceptionally low. This is shown by their failure to appropriately
substitute in a calculation equation. It means that the learners did not remember
what the symbols in the formula stood for. Such learners lacked basic knowledge
and understanding such that it may be naïve to talk about their level of conceptual
reasoning because it was simply not demonstrated.
The overall finding is that most of the learners’ responses on the pre-intervention
test showed that they did not have any idea of the topic which they were taught in
the previous grade. This was evidenced by the blank spaces which most learners
left in most of the questions. The fact that most learners had novice ideas of the
topic was also shown by the number of inappropriate calculations done. The
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
221
learners also picked wrong formulae from the formula sheet provided. This means
that they did not have enough knowledge of how to answer the questions.
The learners also failed to define the concept of ‘limiting reactant’, a critical concept
in stoichiometry, and left blanks while a few of them wrote completely inappropriate
definitions. They also failed to balance the equation of the chemical reaction
provided. That basic requirement of balancing a chemical reaction equation needs
basic mathematical analysis of the number of atoms for each element on each side
of the equation of the reaction. This seemed to be a challenge for most of the
learners in the sample. Some learners wrote an inappropriate formula of sodium
sulphate and this contributed to their failure to balance the equation of reaction.
Though the national senior certificate examination provides balanced chemical
equations in most of the questions, there are still one or two questions where
learners need to write the chemical formula of the substances and balance
equations of reactions. There are certain basic or common chemical substances,
like sodium sulphate, where learners are expected to know the chemical formula or
name.
In the pre-intervention test, the learners also showed that they had novice ideas
when using the ratio technique. This fundamental mathematical operation is useful
when it comes to multi-step complex calculations that link one formula to the next
until finding the appropriate answer (see Section 3.6.2). All learners struggled to
use the ratio technique in solving the multi-step calculations. Their results,
therefore, showed that the learners performed poorly in the multi-step complex
calculations.
In summary, in the pre-intervention test, the learners in the sample showed that
their ability to respond to questions assessing low-level cognitive skills was
exceptionally poor. The learners lacked the lowest cognitive skills of recall and
understanding. Therefore, in the pre-intervention test, the learners demonstrated
no understanding of basic concepts except in exceedingly rare cases. This was
evidenced by a lot of blank spaces or incomplete responses to questions. They
failed to choose suitable formulae from the formula sheet. And if they managed to
choose the formula appropriately, they would fail to appropriately substitute in the
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
222
formula. In rare cases, they would fail to do the appropriate mathematical operation
to find the answer even if they had substituted appropriately. It appears all the
learners failed to use the ratio technique in the pre-intervention test. They seemed
to lack knowledge of the ratio techniques. The ratio technique is a fundamental
mathematical reasoning skill which is essential in solving stoichiometry calculations.
This shows that they were not equipped to solve stoichiometry problems. The
learners lacked basic reasoning required to solve calculations. The findings indicate
that the learners lacked understanding of the topic and hence it was naive to talk
about the extent of their reasoning in the pre-intervention test. This deficiency in
basic understanding or recall identified in the pre-intervention test is a possible
indication that the learners lacked a grounded understanding of the concepts. Such
a state of mind may lead learners to perceive science as difficult and unreachable
which may lead to misconceptions (Areepattamannil, 2012).
More details about how learners engaged and reasoned during the pre-intervention
test have been provided in section 4.11. The results include the pictures of the
learners’ responses as classified according to the levels of cognition, which are
novice, elementary, intermediate, competent, or advanced.
5.3.2 How the learners engaged and reasoned in the post-
intervention test
The post-intervention test was examined similarly to the pre-intervention test data
based on the constructive component of the ICAP framework (Chi, et al., 2018; Chi,
2011). The constructive component of ICAP revealed the cognitive level of each
learner as they completed the post-intervention test. The learners in both classes
showed an improvement in understanding and reasoning in the post-intervention
test compared to their reasoning and understanding in the pre-intervention test. The
learners demonstrated more reasoning skills and understanding in all levels of the
questions from the simplest to the most complex. The higher reasoning was shown
by a higher number of learners with advanced and competent knowledge to answer
level 3 and level 4 questions. There were a higher number of learners who
demonstrated competent and intermediate knowledge in the level 3 and level 2
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
223
questions, respectively. And there was a decrease in novice ideas in each question
in the post-intervention test as compared to the pre-intervention test.
In the post-intervention test, the learners did multi-step calculations using many
formulae as required by the question. The minds of these learners were open to
such an extent that they could easily solve complicated multi-step calculations. It
should be noted that the POGIL activities did not directly teach similar questions.
However, the activities were carefully designed in a way that learners developed
their reasoning and understanding of concepts to enable successful problem-
solving. The learners were equipped to tackle any question related to the topic.
The results show a large increase in the number of learners with intermediate,
competent, and advanced, knowledge in level 2, level 3, and level 4 questions,
respectively. There was a clear decrease in the number of learners with elementary
knowledge and those with novice approaches to solving the questions.
The multi-step advanced questions that were appropriately solved are typical
examination questions. This implies that after the POGIL intervention the learners
are likely to successfully tackle such questions in the final examination. The learners
solved the advanced questions very well except for a few who had minor errors.
The learners also solved the intermediate questions with ease. The number of
learners who could appropriately describe the concept of a limiting reactant in their
own words increased. It should be noted that the definition of limiting reactant was
not recited during the intervention (see annexure 11 the POGIL worksheet). The
learners did activities where they identified the limiting reactant. So, the learners
developed the concept by themselves (concept invention) and the activity stated
that the substance that is finished first is the limiting reactant. This was one of the
‘aha’ moments where learners developed the concepts by direct interaction with the
content at their own pace and in their own language.
It should be noted that in as much as the teacher may enforce the use of the official
language for instruction during the POGIL activities, some groups of learners held
group discussions in the language of their choice. They then translated their
responses back to the language of instruction. Furthermore, engaging learners
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
224
when it comes to the use of home language in the teaching of any subject may yield
results, because learners know the ways they can communicate with each other in
their home language. Their communication, however, may need re-tailoring
because it sometimes is a mixture of different home languages or sometimes it is
mixed with street language.
Another possible advantage of POGIL may therefore be the flexibility in the
language of communication within groups. During POGIL, learners can quickly
switch to any language in their group to explain complex issues without shouting it
out loud to the whole class. More details about the post-intervention test results
are in chapter 4, Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5.
5.3.3 How the learners engaged and reasoned during POGIL
activities?
The learners’ engagement during the POGIL intervention was underpinned by the
ICAP (Chi, et al., 2018) frameworks. The ICAP framework examined the learners’
actions with regards to their discussions as they solved the POGIL worksheets.
During the POGIL activities, the learners worked through activities taking them from
simple day-to-day examples, depending on the learners’ contexts, to more complex
tasks. This resulted in the development and use of low-level cognitive skills up to
high levels of cognition. As the activities got tougher, there was a lot of critical
thinking needed and the learners were prompted to apply their understanding and
reasoning skills to be able to answer the activities fully. During the activities, there
was also concept development which entailed the learners discovering conceptual
links by themselves. The learners were not given definitions, but they arrived at the
definitions, laws, or rules by going through activities on their own. As a result, the
learners got to know definitions, laws, rules and so forth without memorizing, but
with understanding. The learners are therefore able to apply their understanding to
new situations. They are also able to do analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of their
learning thereby creating new methods to solve problems.
The learners worked under the interactive stage of the ICAP framework most of the
time. They discussed their ideas about each question sharing ideas based on
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
225
suitable reasoning. During discussions, each learner gave answers based on
justification and the rest of the team analysed the ideas objectively, based on the
information they had. Each learner’s ideas were either accepted or rejected based
on the evidence that supported the ideas. This was the interactive stage of ICAP
where learners benefitted from cooperatively working with each other. They solved
their problems by themselves while the teacher acted as facilitator of the learning
process. Details of the learners’ engagement and reasoning during the POGIL
intervention including some of their quotations during their discussions and pictures
of their work are in section 4.1.9.
5.3.4 How the POGIL-trained Physical Sciences teachers engaged
learners during POGIL activities
The POGIL lessons were guided by the Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive
framework (ICAP). The framework is based on the constructivist philosophy that
learners develop their own mental constructs during learning. The role of the
teacher is identified as a facilitator of the cooperative learning process giving
guidance to the learners as they tackle POGIL worksheets. The role of the learners
is cooperative work assisting one another to solve problems (Moog & Spencer,
2008; Simonson, 2019). One of the teachers’ roles is to carefully group and train
them the different roles they play during the POGIL activities in groups of four. This
was essential to ascertain the cooperative component of the POGIL way of
teaching.
The ICAP framework differentiates the observable behaviours of learners as levels
of their cognitive engagement (Chi, et al., 2018; Chi, 2011). The ICAP framework is
the muscle behind the POGIL classroom’s powerful learning environment that leads
to understanding, reasoning, and critical thinking. The assumption is that the
behaviour of learners during an activity is related to the underlying cognitive
processes. The ICAP framework was used in the current study to observe the
learners’ activities during the POGIL intervention. This was essential to identify the
extent of the POGIL intervention which emphasizes the interactive and constructive
levels of engagement of learners in the group. More details on the ICAP framework
are found in section 2.7.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
226
The way the teachers conducted their POGIL lessons showed that they knew how
to implement POGIL in their classes. They had also previously trained their classes
well and all the learners and teachers participated appropriately. The teachers
successfully facilitated their classes. The participant learners were, therefore,
previously trained to use POGIL by their respective teachers and were previously
taught using POGIL in the other science topics. The researcher had also previously
visited and informally observed the two teachers using POGIL in their classes. As
a result, the learners were aware of their roles in the POGIL activities.
5.3.5 The learners’ perceptions of POGIL as a teaching and learning
strategy
The learners perceived POGIL as an interesting and playful method that makes
scientific knowledge accessible to them. They acknowledged that POGIL made the
hard and abstract topics easier to understand. The step-by-step and scaffolded
procedures used during POGIL activities certainly helped in this regard. POGIL also
improved the performance and understanding of the learners and developed their
reasoning skills because the learners were prompted to justify their answers during
the discussions. As a result, the learners developed critical thinking skills and other
process skills like problem-solving, communication, teamwork, and information
processing. The learners developed self-regulatory skills as they assessed their
own answers before sharing with the group and assessed their peers’ responses
during discussions. The learners associated these skills with their use of POGIL as
a teaching and learning approach. The learners speculated about their future
careers in science and engineering because they anticipated achieving passes
because of POGIL. They also wished to be taught mathematics using POGIL
because they had noticed their low marks in mathematics. Their metacognitive
awareness developed because of POGIL as they could identify the method as a
possible solution to remedy their poor performance in mathematics.
Overall, the learners were interested in using POGIL in all their activities as they
noticed the benefits of cooperative learning and that teamwork helps them to
achieve more than individual work, as well as helping them in reasoning and
understanding. POGIL allows learners the freedom to have discussions and allows
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
227
all the learners to participate actively during the lessons. The learners preferred
POGIL because they worked in small groups and were free to contribute to
discussions without worrying that other learners would laugh at their ideas. The
results suggest that the learners had developed confidence in working through
stoichiometry calculations. This agrees with previous findings (De Gale & Boisselle,
2015). More details about learners’ perceptions of the POGIL way of teaching is
contained in chapter 4 Section 4.1.10.
5.3.6 The teachers’ perceptions of POGIL as a teaching and learning
strategy
Both teachers were interested in using POGIL and seemed pleased with the good
results they obtained from using POGIL. Both participating teachers acknowledged
that their learners understood and performed better when they were taught using
POGIL. They both acknowledged that POGIL allowed all their learners to participate
actively, including those who were usually passive. The teachers commended
POGIL for producing good results even for the typically low-performing learners.
They both acknowledged that POGIL classes are noisy and that the noise may be
reduced by grouping learners according to their abilities. One of the teachers noted
that POGIL is time-wasting while the other differed and viewed POGIL as saving
time in the long run. Both teachers promised to continue using POGIL in their
classes if they get worksheets for the rest of the topics. One of the teachers
indicated that she wanted to use POGIL in all her lessons. This indicates that the
teachers were happy with the POGIL teaching approach. They even suggested that
it to be used in other subjects like mathematics because their learners had shown
interest.
Overall, the teachers who participated in the current study were happy to use
POGIL and had witnessed the benefits of using it in their classes. The teachers
demonstrated confidence in using POGIL and promised to continue using POGIL
provided they continued getting support. They only had worksheets for a few topics
even though they may download for free from the POGIL website. More details
about the teachers’ perceptions of the POGIL way of teaching are provided in
chapter 4 sections 4.1.10.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
228
5.4 Summary of the findings
The learners demonstrated mostly novice and elementary knowledge and
understanding during the pre-intervention test. There was very little evidence of
conceptual understanding. Most of the learners had challenges in selecting the
formulae or appropriately substituting in the formulae. During the POGIL
intervention, the teachers facilitated the POGIL lessons in line with POGIL
requirements (Moog & Spencer, 2008; Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning,
2010; Simonson, 2019). Both teachers allowed learner-centred learning to occur as
learners worked through the POGIL worksheets. The teachers did not take on the
role of knowledge transmitters but that of facilitators who provided direction for the
learners to follow. The learners were familiar with the POGIL method of learning
and collectively worked through the worksheets, assisting one another and
producing common answers for the group. They displayed sound reasoning and
justified their thinking about answers effectively.
The post-intervention test results suggest an improvement in the reasoning ability
and understanding of learners. The learners demonstrated that they could select
the correct formulae, substitute appropriately, perform multi-step calculations, and
use the ratio technique appropriately to link one step to the next. The results show
that the learners demonstrated higher-order thinking skills in their responses to
questions requiring advanced and competent knowledge levels. It appears that
POGIL was effective in improving understanding and reasoning skills and eliciting
interest and participation of learners in classes.
The improvement in learners’ cognitive levels in the post-intervention test following
the POGIL intervention suggests improved critical thinking skills (analysing,
evaluating, synthesizing, problem solving skills such as identification, planning and
executing a strategy (Moog & Spencer, 2008). This improved critical thinking entails
the improvement of learners’ reasoning, which translates into improved
performance and achievement in the topic. This is in line with previous research
where inquiry learning resulted in improved academic performance and
achievement (Hanson, 2006; Hein, 2012; Koopman, 2017; Moog & Spencer, 2008;
Nadelson, 2009; Villagonzalo, 2014) . The learners in the current study worked well
through the POGIL worksheets, manifesting process skills such as communication,
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
229
teamwork, management, information processing and assessment (Simonson,
2019). This outcome is peculiar to inquiry and POGIL.
Previous studies observed that high school learners improved their achievement
(chemistry knowledge, science process skills, and scientific attitude) and problem-
solving competency when using guided inquiry learning (Tornee, Bunterm, Lee, &
Muchimapura, 2019). The current results, where learners improved reasoning
which translates into improved problem-solving competency, supports previous
results. The unique feature for the current study is that it shows that learners
improved their problem-solving skills and improved performance and understanding
because their reasoning had improved.
Previous studies have identified that scientific inquiry improved learners’ curiosity
in addition to improving their problem-solving skills (Wilujeng & Hastuti, 2020). This
agrees with the observations done in the current study where learners showed
excitement towards the POGIL way of teaching. The learners concentrated during
the intervention and this resulted in the active participation of the usually passive
learners. The participating teachers demonstrated interest in using POGIL in their
future lessons. They witnessed excitement and active participation of their learners,
improved understanding and reasoning of their learners and wished to proceed
using POGIL if they get continuous support.
5.5 Concluding remarks
As an experienced physical sciences teacher, I have been concerned with the
approaches used in the teaching of abstract and difficult topics such as
stoichiometry. The study revealed that POGIL produces learners who are
multifaceted in terms of process skills. These skills, such as teamwork,
communication, problem-solving skills, information processing skills and critical
thinking, were observed in the manner the learners related to one another. The
learners displayed a high level of teamwork, communication, and critical thinking
skills. These skills are not only useful during the early learning stages but also for
their future careers and social life in general. The critical thinking skills form the
background of the reasoning that learners develop and use to solve higher-order
complex multi-step calculations.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
230
It appears that POGIL may be effective in developing higher levels of cognition and
reasoning. The available results suggest that POGIL may be effective in eliciting
learner reasoning in the topic of stoichiometry. The findings suggest that if POGIL
is effectively used, it may develop learners who are more critical thinkers who use
reasoning rather than relying on rote learning. The use of POGIL seems to be
effective in reducing the reliance on elementary knowledge to respond to advanced
questions as well as improving the conceptual understanding of learners. It may be
of benefit for high school teachers to use POGIL in their teaching since learners
would develop higher-order cognitive skills. Such cognitive skills are especially
useful for the learners’ future careers as they develop application and creation
which are necessary for scientific research. The excitement of the teachers who
tried POGIL also indicates that this approach may be a solution to some challenges
in our education system. If more teachers are trained in using POGIL, perhaps the
achievement of the South African learners may increase. That achievement will in
this case be linked to understanding.
5.5.1 Limitations of the study
The current study used a qualitative approach and a pre-intervention test post-
intervention test case study design as well as lesson observations and face to face
interviews for teachers and focus group interviews for learners. During lesson
observations, direct observation of teachers was done while learners’ group work
was video recorded. There were challenges related to the research approach and
the research design used in this study. Case studies are limited in that they are
focused on a small sample, meaning that their findings cannot be generalized
(Nieuwenhuis, 2011). The current study was carried out at only two schools and the
participating learners were only two classes with a total of 48 learners, and the
respective teachers of those classes. As such, the sample was too small, and the
findings cannot be used as a representation for the whole of South Africa. But they
can be used to guide the influence of POGIL on learners’ reasoning in stoichiometry
and other science topics.
Another limitation was the video recording used in this study. It was very important
to record the learners’ groupwork during the POGIL intervention. As such, video
recordings were successfully made using cell phone cameras which focused on
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
231
learners’ work. However, it was observed during analysis that some learners did
part of their discussions and calculations off-camera and only brought the finished
answer to the camera afterwards. In such cases, there was no chance during
analysis to determine the learners’ actions based on the ICAP framework (Section
2.7). It was not clear whether the ideas provided by the group came from the group
or one or two individuals. An extra video recorder was necessary to capture
learners’ activities and gestures as they participated in the groupwork. Such
recordings could have been useful to reveal the active participation of all learners
during the discussions, and the possible consultations of members of other groups.
Another limitation was the manner in which the pre-intervention test and post-
intervention test were administered. After completing each test, the learners
submitted their scripts for analysis. During analysis, some learners had left blank
spaces, especially in the pre-intervention test. It was assumed that the learners had
no suitable answer for those questions. However, more information could have
been collected by an interview of each learner. Another limitation during the tests
was related to the anonymity of the learners. The learners did not write their names
on the scripts and this was good practice to protect the privacy of the learners.
However, the learners should have been given fixed pseudonyms. The names
could have been used to assess the personal progress of each learner. Such
analysis could have been beneficial to the subject teachers who could have
provided individual personalised attention to a learner based on the findings. Such
analysis could have been essential to give in-depth data analysis and provide richer
information about the influence of POGIL on learners’ reasoning.
5.5.2 Possible contributions of the study
The study showed that the POGIL strategy is useful in the development of learners’
cognitive skills and understanding of a complex topic like stoichiometry. This was
achieved using the POGIL worksheets whereby learners worked in groups with
activities starting from simple and familiar concepts to more complex scientific
concepts. Besides assisting one another by giving justification to their ideas, the
learners were guided by the teacher on how to think critically. The teacher acted as
facilitator of the learning process without telling the learners the answers to
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
232
questions and instead guiding them towards the answers. Each learner ended up
with better understanding than they would have done if they worked individually.
The findings in the current study contribute to the body of knowledge by developing
a tool for assessing the pre-intervention test and the post-intervention test. The
tools used in the current study may be used to assess learners’ reasoning and
understanding. These instruments were successfully used in the pilot study and in
the two schools as both pre-intervention test and post-intervention test. The tools
were adapted from the previous examination questions in the same grade and were
framed according to the requirements of the examination guidelines of the DoBE.
The consistency of these instruments during use in the current study may confirm
their usefulness in future related studies. The instruments may be modified to
accommodate the needs of any particular research. The study provided the tool for
assessing learners’ cognitive levels in the pre-intervention test and post-
intervention test answers as either novice, elementary, intermediate, competent of
advanced (see Section 3.6.2). Although the tool is similar to the tool used by the
DoBE, the description and elaborated classification of questions is a possible
contribution. The novice cognitive level was when learners lacked a basic
understanding of the question.
The study noted that South African learners who participated in this study were
interested in being taught using POGIL because the learners in the sample
demonstrated excitement. The learners claimed that they understood science better
and that their marks had improved when they used POGIL in the previous topics.
They described understanding science better, unlike in the past when they tended
to memorise without understanding. The learners improved their reasoning and use
of the ratio technique. Both the learners and the teachers attributed this
improvement in reasoning and understanding of the ratio technique to the POGIL
way of teaching. The learners requested to be taught mathematics using POGIL
with the hope of improving their marks. Their teachers testified that the performance
and participation of the learners also increased, especially the usually passive
learners. This implies that POGIL may have increased learners’ interest and
metacognition.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
233
The current study used the ICAP framework as the theoretical framework to monitor
the learners’ activities during the POGIL intervention and to assess their pre-
intervention test and post-intervention test responses as a measure of the learners’
constructive engagement (Chi, 2011; Chi & Wylie, 2014). It was observed that at
times the learners were in none of the four cognitive levels of engagements
described in the ICAP framework. For that reason, and for the purposes of this
study, I modified the ICAP framework to an ICAPD framework to measure the
cognitive engagement of learners during the POGIL lessons. The lowest stage
being disengagement. This was observed as different from the passive state where
the learner will be attentive and focused on the given task (Chi, et al., 2018; Chi &
Wylie, 2014). The disengaged state is when the learner is not attentive to the given
task but doing other unrelated things.
Regarding language usage, the study observed that during the POGIL intervention
learners sometimes used their home language or gestures which they all
understood. Such communication between learners appeared to be fast and very
efficient. The study identified that the learners feel more comfortable working in
small groups than discussing as a class for fear of being laughed at by other
learners if they give incorrect answers.
The video stand used in the current study can be used in future studies of this
nature. The stand can be used to capture learners’ work as video and audio without
focusing on their faces. The benefits of this particular stand (Figure 4.85) include
accurately capturing the progress of the learners during the activities and ensuring
the anonymity of the participants.
5.5.3 Recommendations
I recommend that high school science teachers use POGIL in teaching
stoichiometry. This method may reduce the learners’ elementary levels of cognition
and improve their advanced and competent levels of cognition. I also suggest the
use of POGIL in all the abstract topics in chemistry. I hope that the learners’
cognition will improve as it did in stoichiometry. I also suggest that more science
teachers undergo POGIL training, as a greater number of trained teachers will
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
234
produce better results. This will lead to more networking in order to help each other
to help learners learn better.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
235
References
Abd-El Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamluk-Naaman, R.,
Hofstein, A., & Taun, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International
perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397-419. doi:10.1002/sce.10118
Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1986). The sequence of learning cycle activities in
high school chemistry. Journal of research in science teaching, 22(2), 121-148.
doi:10.1002/tea.3660230205
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R.,
& Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills
and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,
78(4), 1102-1134. doi:10.3102/0034654308326084
Adigwe, J. C. (2013). Effect of mathematical reasoning skills on students’ achievement
in chemical stoichiometry. Review of Education institute of education journal,
University of Nigeria Nsukka, 23(1), 1-22.
Alebiosu, K. A. (2005). Utilising selected informal science experiences to teach
science in inquiry-centered Nigerian classrooms. African Education Review
2(1), 109-117. doi:10.1080/18146620508566294
Alemu, B., & Schulze, S. (2012). Active learning approaches in mathematics education
at universities in Ethiopia: The discrepancies between policy and practice. Acta
Academia 44(2), 136-154.
Allers, N. (2007). Teaching Pre-medical Sciences to large groups: matching teaching
and learning styles in higher education. Acta Academia 39(3), 183-199.
Anderson, A., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching and
assessing: A Revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (Second
Edition). Allyn and Bacon.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about
inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1-12.
doi:10.1023/a:1015171124982
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
236
Andrews, T. C., & Lemons, P. P. (2015). Its personal: Biology instructors prioritize
personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions. CBE-Life
Sciences Education, 14(1), 1-18. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-05-0084
Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active
learning NOT associated with student learning in a random sample of college
biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394-405.
doi:10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061
Areepattamannil, S. (2012). The effects of inquiry-based science instruction on
science achievement and interest in science: Evidence from Qatar. Journal of
Educational Research, 105, 134-146. doi:10.1080/00220671.2010.533717
Arends, F., & Phurutse, M. (2009). Beginner teachers in South Africa: School
readiness, knowledge and skills. HSRC press.
Arons, A. B. (1979). Some thoughts on reasoning capacities implicitly expected of
college students. In J. Lochead, J. Clement, & (EDs), Cognitive process
instruction: Research on teaching thinking skills (pp. 209-215). Franklin Institute
Press.
Ashmore, A. D., Frazer, M. J., & Casey, R. J. (1979). Problem solving and problem
solving network in chemistry. Chemistry Education, 56(6), 377-379.
doi:10.1021/ed056p377
Ausubel, D. (1978). Educational psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1986). Educational psychology: A
cognitive view (2nd ed.) (Original work published 1978). Warbel and Peck.
Avery, L. M., & Meyer, D. Z. (2012). Teaching science as science is practised:
Opportunities and limits for enhancing pre-service elementary educators' self
efficacy for science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics
Journal, 112, 395-409. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00159.x
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
237
Bailey, C. P., Minderhout, V., & Loertscher, J. (2011). Learning transferable skills in
large lecture halls: Implementing a POGIL approach in biochemistry.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(1), 1-7.
doi:10.1002/bmb.20556
Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science and Education,
11(4), 361-375.
Balushi, S., Ambusaidi, A., Al-Shuaili, A., & Taylor, N. (2012). Omani twelfth grade
students' most common misconceptions in chemistry. Science Education
International, 23 (3), 221-240.
Barthlow, M. D., & Watson, S. B. (2011). The effectiveness of process-oriented guided
inquiry learning to reduce alternative conceptions in secondary chemistry.
School Science and Mathematics, 114(5), 246-255. doi:10.1111/ssm.12076
Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2009). Collaborative inquiry
learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science
Education, 32(3), 349-377. doi:10.1080/09500690802582241
Bennett, J. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college
instruction (3rd ed). International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 3(1). doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030134
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs,
techniques and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823
Bloom. (1956). Taxonomy of Education Objective, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain.
David Mckay Co Inc.
Bloom, B. S., & Broder, L. J. (1950). Problem-solving processes of college students:
An exploratory investigation. The University of Chicago Press.
Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical
Education, 63(10), 873. doi:10.1021/ed063p873
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
238
Bodner, G., & Elmas, R. (2020). The impact of inquiry-based, group-work approaches
to instruction on both students and their peer leaders. European Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 51-66. doi:10.30935/scimath/9546
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the
classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cooking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience and school. National Academic Press.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners.
In McGilly K (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and
classroom practice (pp. 229–270). The MIT Press.
Brown, N. J., Furtak, E. M., Timms, M., Nagashima, S. O., & Wilson, M. (2010). The
evidence-based reasoning framework: assessing scientific reasoning.
Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 123-141.
doi:10.1080/10627197.2010.530551
Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools of thought: A science of learning in the classroom. MIT
Press. doi:10.5860/choice.31-1642
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.
Bruner, J. S., & Haste, H. (1990). Making sense. Routledge.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practice.
Heinemann.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). The teaching of science: 21st century perspective. NTSA Press.
doi:10.2505/9781936137053
Cadwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best
practice tips. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-
0205
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
239
Cakici, Y., & Yavuz, G. (2012). The effect of constructivist science teaching on 4th
grade students' understanding of matter. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science
Learning and Teaching,11, Available on http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v11
issue2/cakici/cakici7.htm.
Carlson, M. P., & Bloom, I. (2005). The cyclic nature of problem-solving: An emergent
multi-dimensional problem-solving framework. Educational studies in
mathematics, 58(1), 839-853. doi:10.1007/s10649-005-0808-x
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., Waldrip, B. G., & Chandrasegaran, A. (2009).
Students' dilemmas in reaction stoichiometry problem solving: Deducing the
limiting reagent in chemical reactions. Chemistry Education, Research and
Practice, 10(1), 14-23. doi:10.1039/b901456j
Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for
differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.
doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
Chi, M. T. (2011). Differentiating four levels of engagement with learning materials:
The ICAP hypothesis. 19th International Conference on Computers in
Education. http://nectec.or.th/icce2011/speakers/highlightedSessions.php.
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to
active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Chi, M. T., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., . . .
Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive
engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777-1832.
doi:10.1111/cogs.12626
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3, 7. doi:10.1016/0307-
4412(89)90094-0
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
240
Clark, H. H. (1969). Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. Psychological
Review, 76(4), 387-404. doi:10.1037/h0027578
Coetzee, A., & Imenda, S. I. (2012). Effects of outcomes-based education and
traditional lecture approaches in overcoming alternative conceptions in physics.
African Journal of Research in MST Education 16(2), 145-147.
doi:10.1080/10288457.2012.10740736
Colburn, A. (2009). The prepared practitioner. Science Teacher, 76(6), 10.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Crouche, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and
results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977. doi:10.1119/1.1374249
Cuban, L. (1984). Policy and research dilemmas in the teaching of reasoning:
Unplanned designs. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 655-681.
doi:10.3102/00346543054004655
Cullipher, S., Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2015). Reasoning about benefits, costs and
risks of chemical substances: Mapping different levels of sophistication. Journal
of Chemistry Education and Practice, 16(2), 377-392. doi:10.1039/c5rp00025d
Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. (2007). Thai grade 10 and 11 students' understanding of
stoichiometry and related concepts. Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 6(3), 573-600. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9072-0
Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 5(4), 331–343. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(84)90006-
6
Daubenmire, P. L., & Bunce, D. M. (2008). What do students experience during POGIL
instruction? In R. S. Moog, & J. N. Spencer, Process oriented guided inquiry
learning (Vol 994) (pp. 87-99). American chemical society. doi:10.1021/bk-
2008-0994.ch008
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
241
Daubenmire, P. L., Bunce, D. M., Draus, C., Frazier, M., Gessell, A., & van Opstal, M.
T. (2015). During POGIL implementation the professor still makes a difference.
Journal of college science teaching, 44(5), 72-81.
doi:10.2505/4/jcst15_044_05_72
De Gale, S., & Boisselle, L. N. (2015). The effect of POGIL on academic performance
and academic confidence. International Council of Associations for Science
Education.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for
practices. American Library Association. doi:10.5860/choice.29-0433
Department of Basic Education (DoBE NCS-CAPS). (2016). Grade 10-12
Mathematics, National Curriculum Statement-CAPS. In Department of
Education (Ed). Government Printing Works.
Department of Basic Education [DoBE NCS-CAPS]. (2012). Grades 10-12 physical
sciences, national curriculum statement-CAPS. In Department of Education
(Ed). Government Printing Works. Retrieved from www.info.gov.za.
Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report. (2016). National senior certificate
diagnostic report. Government Printing Works. Retrieved from
www.info.gov.za.
Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report. (2019). National senior certificate
diagnostic report. Government Printing Works. Retrieved from
www.info.gov.za.
Department of Basic Education [DoBE] Report. (2020). National senior certificate
examination: School subject report. www.info.gov.za. Retrieved from
www.info.gov.za.
Donker, A. S., De Boer, H., Kostons, D., van Ewijk, C. D., & van der Werf, M. P. (2014).
Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A
meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 11, 1-26. doi:10.1016 /
j.edurev.2013.11.002
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
242
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghein, A. (1985). Chldren's ideas in science. Open
University Press.
Driver, R., Osoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing
scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
doi:10.3102/0013189x023007005
DuBert, T., Barreto, J., Deiros, D., Kakareka, J., Brown, D., & Ewald, C. (2008).
Multiple pedagogical reforms implemented in a university science class to
address diverse learning learning styles. Journal of College Science Teaching,
38(2), 39-43.
Dudu, W. T. (2014). The changing roles of South African natural sciences teachers in
an era of introducing a "refined and repackaged" curriculum. Journal of Science
Education, 7(3), 547-558. doi:10.1080/09751122.2014.11890216
Dudu, W. T., & Vhurumuku, E. (2012). Educators' practices of inquiry when teaching
investigations: A Case study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 579-
600. doi:10.1080/09751122.2014.11890216
Duran, M., & Dokme, I. (2016). The effect of the inquiry-based learning approach on
student's critical thinking skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 12(12), 2887-2908. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.02311a
Ebersohn, L., Eloff, I., & Ferreira, R. (2011). First steps in action research. In K. Maree,
First Steps in Research (pp. 124-141). Van Schaik Publishers.
Elberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P.,
& White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science. A comparison of
PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Biomolecular Biology Education,
36(4), 262-273.
Elmore, F. R. (1991). Foreward. In C. R. Christensen, D. A. Garvin, & A. Sweet,
Education for Judgement (pp. 2-8). Harvard Business School.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
243
Ennis, R. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In. In J. B.
Baron, & R. Sternberg, Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26).
W.H. Freeman & Co.
Ernst, J., & Manroe, M. (2004). The effects of environment-based education on
students' critical thinking skills and disposition towards critical thinking.
Environment Education Research, 10(4), 507-522.
doi:10.1080/1350462042000291038
Facione, N. C., & Facione, P. A. (2007). Thinking and reasoning in human decision
making: The method of argument and heuristic analysis. The California
Academic Press.
Facione, N. C., & Facione, P. A. (2008). Critical thinking and clinical reasoning in the
health sciences: An international multidisciplinary teaching anthology. The
California Academic Press.
Facione, P. A. (2009). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Retrieved from
http://www.insightassessment.com/9articles%20WW.html
Fahim, M., & Masoulch, N. S. (2012). Critical thinking in higher education: A
pedagogical look. Theory and Practice in Langauge Studies, 2(7), 1370-1375.
doi:10.4304/tpls.2.7.1370-1375
Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment of higher education: A meta
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395-430.
doi:10.3102/00346543059004395
Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (1999). A guided inquiry general chemistry
course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 570-573. doi:10.1021/ed076p570
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis:
A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
doi:10.1177/160940690600500107
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
244
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Fosnor, c. T. (1996). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach
for teaching. Teachers College Press.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., &
Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in
science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science, 111(23), 8410-8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Frey, R. F., & Shadle, S. E. (2019). The guided inquiry. In S. R. Simonson, POGIL: An
introduction to process oriented guided inquiry learning for those who wish to
empower learners (pp. 69-84). Stylus Publishing.
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggss, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-
experimental studies of inquiry-based teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 82, 300-329. doi:10.3102%2F0034654312457206
Garrett, R. M. (1986). Problem-solving in science education. Studies in Science
Education, 13(1), 70-95. doi:10.1080/03057268608559931
Gauci, S. A., Dantas, A. M., Williams, D. A., & Kemm, R. E. (2009). Promoting student-
centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances
in Physiology Education, 33(1), 60-71. doi:10.1152/advan.00109.2007
Glaser, R. (1983). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American
Psychologist, 39(2), 93-104. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.2.93
Goel, V., Gold, B., Kapur, S., & Houle, S. (1997). The seats of reason? An imaging
study of deductive and inductive reasoning. NeuroReport, 8(5), 1305-1310.
doi:10.1097/00001756-199703240-00049
Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems
research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 135-146.
doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.54
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
245
Greer, B. (1997). Modelling reality in mathematics classroom: The case of word
process. Learning and Instruction. 7(4), 293-307. doi:10.1016/s0959-
4752(97)00006-6
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In
N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117).
Sage.
Hadar, A. H., & Al Naqabi, A. K. (2008). Emiratii high school students’ understandings
of stoichiometry and the influence of metacognition on their understanding.
Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 215-237.
doi:10.1080/02635140802037393
Hanson, D. (2006). Instructor's guide to process-oriented guided inquiry learning.
Pacific Crest.
Harvey, S., & Daniels, H. (2009). Inquiry approach versus coverage approach:
Comprehension and Collaboration. Heinemann.
Heijltjes, A., van Gog, T., Leppink, J., & Paas, F. (2014). Improving critical thinking:
Effects of dispositions and instructions on economics students’ reasoning skills.
Learning and Instruction, 29, 31-42. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.003
Hein, S. M. (2012). Positive impacts using POGIL in organic chemistry. Journal of
Chemical Education, 86(7), 860-864. doi:10.1021/ed100217v
Helsdingen, A., Van Gog, T., & & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2011). Effects of practice
schedule and critical thinking instruction on learning and transfer of a complex
judgment task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 383-398.
doi:10.1037/a0022370
Herawati, H., Hakim, A., & Nurhadi, M. (2020). The effectiveness of inquiry-based
learning with multiple representation to improve critical thinking skill in learning
electrochemistry. In AIP Conference Proceedings, 2215(1), 20007.
doi:10.1063/5.0001060
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
246
Hewson, P. W. (1992). Conceptual change in science teaching and teacher education.
National Centre for Educational Research, Documentation Assessment.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and
achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner,
Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
doi:10.1080/00461520701263368
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative
scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and
Instruction, 17(4), 379–432. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1704_2
Hughes, R. I., & Jones, S. K. (2011). Developing and assessing college student
teamwork skills. New Directions for Institutional Research, (special issue), 149,
53-64. doi:10.1002/ir.380
Johnson, C. (2011). Activities using process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL)
in the foreign language classroom. Die Unterrichitspraxix/Teaching German,
44(1), 30-38. doi:10.1111/j.1756-1221.2011.00090.x
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology,
50(1), 109. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.109
Johnstone, A. H. (1997). Chemistry teaching - science or alchemy? Journal of
Chemical Education, 74(3), 262. doi:10.1021/ed074p262
Jones, A. (2007). Multiplicities or manna from heaven? Critical thinking and the
disciplinary context. Australian Journal of Education, 51(1), 84-103.
doi:10.1177/000494410705100107
Karplus, R., & Thier, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. In
Michaelis J. U. (Ed). New trends in curriculum and instruction. Rand McNally &
Co.
Kimberlin, S., & Yezierski, E. (2016). Effectiveness of inquiry-based lessons using
particulate level models to develop high school students’ understanding of
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
247
conceptual stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(6), 1002-1009.
doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b01010
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Knauffa, M., Mulacka, T., Kassubek, J., Salih, H. R., & Greenleed, M. W. (2002).
Spatial imagery in deductive reasoning: A functional MRI study. Cognitive Brain
Research, 13(2), 203--212. doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(01)00116-1
Kompa, J. S. (2012). Key disadvantages of teacher-centered learning. Liverpool:
Available on http://joanakompa.com/disadvantages of teacher-centered
learning.
Koopman, O. (2017). Investigating how science teachers in South Africa engage with
all three levels of representation in selected chemistry topics. African Journal
of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(1), , 15-
25. doi:10.1080/18117295.2016.1261546
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific
thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. doi:10.1002/sce.3730770306
Kuiper, R. A., & Pesut, D. J. (2004). Promoting cognitive and metacognitive reflective
reasoning skills in nursing practice: Self-regulated learning theory. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 45(4), 381-391.
Kulatunga, U., & Lewis, J. E. (2013). Exploration of peer leader verbal behaviour as
they intervene with small groups in college general chemistry. Chemical
Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 576-588. doi:10.1039/c3rp00081h
Kulatunga, U., Moog, R. S., & Lewis, J. E. (2014). Argumentation and participation
patterns in general chemistry peer-led sessions. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching , 50(10), 1207-1231. doi:10.1002/tea.21107
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
248
Kurumeh, M. S., Jimin, N., & Mohammed, A. S. (2012). Enhancing senior secondary
students' achievement in algebra using inquiry method of teaching in Onitsha
educational zone of Anambra state, Nigeria. Journal of Emerging Trends in
Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(6), 863-868.
doi:10.10520/EJC132382
Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Retrieved from Pearson:
http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/CriticalThinkingReviewF
INAL.pdf
Laily, T. R., Prastika, A., Marfu’ah, S., & Suharti, S. (2020). Learning buffer solution
through modified POGIL justified by student’s scientific argumentation skills. In
AIP Conference Proceedings, 2215(1), 20011. doi:10.1063/5.0000690
Lausin, F. (2020). The effects of using particulate diagrams on high school students’
conceptual understanding of stoichiometry. Abstract Proceedings International
Scholars Conference,7(1), 1599-1615. doi:10.35974/isc.v7i1.1709
Lawson, A. E. (1988). A better way to teach biology. The American Biology Teacher,
50(5), 266-278. doi:10.2307/4448733
Lee, V. S. (2012). What is inquiry-guided learning. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 2012(129), 5-14. doi:10.1002/tl.20002
Levin, H. M., & Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in
American classroom 1890-1980. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
124. doi:10.2307/3323864
Levy, P., & Petrulis, R. (2012). How do first-year university students experience inquiry
and research, and what are the implications for the practice of inquiry-based
learning? Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 85-101.
doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.499166
Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking: Teaching for higher order
thinking. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 131-137.
doi:10.1080/00405849309543588
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
249
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalist Inquiry. Sage Publications.
Llewellyn, D. (2011). Differentiated science inquiry. Corwin Press.
Loo, J. L. (2013). Guided and team-based learning for chemical information literacy.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 252-259.
doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2013.01.007
Lyman, F. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students.
In A. S. Anderson , Mainstream digest (pp. 109-113). University of Maryland.
Mabusela, S., & Adams, J. (2016). Employing role-play in teaching and learning: A
case of higher education. South African Journal of higher education 27(3), 489-
500. doi:10.20853/27-3-263
Maier, N. (1933). An aspect of human reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 24(2),
144-155. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1933.tb00692.x
Malcolm, S. A., Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2019). The validity and reliability of an
instrument to measure physical science teachers’ topic specific pedagogical
content knowledge in stoichiometry. African Journal of Research in
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 23(2), 181-194.
doi:10.1080/18117295.2019.1633080
Mamombe A, Kazeni M, & de Villiers R. (2016). Contexts preferences of educators
and learners for studying genetics: A case study in South Africa. African Journal
of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(2), 165-
174. doi:10.1080/18117295.2016.1187509
Mamombe, C., Mathabathe, K. C., & Gaigher, E. (2020). The Influence of an inquiry-
based approach on grade four learners’ understanding of the particulate nature
of matter in the gaseous phase: A case study. EURASIA Journal of
Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 16(1).
doi:10.29333/ejmste/110391
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
250
Marais, F., & Combrick, S. (2009). An approach to dealing with difficulties
undergraduate chemistry students experience with stoichiometry. South African
Journal of Chemistry, 62, 88-96. Retrieved from
http://journals.sabinet.co.za/sajchem/
Maree, K., & Pietersen, J. (2011). Sampling. In K. Maree, First steps in research (pp.
172-181). Van Shaik.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69, 34-37.
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., &
Tali Tal, R. (2004). Inquiry-based science in middle grades: Assessment of
learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
41(10), 1063-1080. doi:10.1002/tea.20039
Masista, M. G. (2006). Student motivation: The study approaches of grade twelve
learners in township schools. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20(3).
doi:10.4314/sajhe.v20i3.25590
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: Getting students to think in class. AIP Conference
Proceedings, 399(1), (pp. 981-988). doi:10.1063/1.53199
McCarthy, J. P., & Anderson, L. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional
teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative
Higher Education, 24(4), 279-294. doi:10.1023/b:ihie.0000047415.48495.05
McGuire, S. Y., & McGuire, S. (2015). Teach students how to learn. Stylus publication.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the
classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6(4), 359–377. doi:10.1016/s0959-
4752(96)00021-7
Merriam-Webster. (2020, Nov 30). "Reasoning". Retrieved from Merriam-
Webster.com dictionary: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reasoning
Michael, J. (2006). Where is the evidence that active learning work? Advances in
Physiology Education, 30(4), 159-167. doi:10.1152/advan.00053.2006
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
251
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our
capacity for processing information. Psychological Reviews, 63(2), 81-97.
doi:10.1037/h0043158
Minner, D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-What
is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
doi:10.1002/tea.20347
Miri, B., David, B., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of higher-
order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Scientific Education,
37(4), 353-369. doi:10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2
Mocerino, M., Chandrasegaran, A., & Treagust, D. (2009). Emphasizing multiple levels
of representation of enhance students' understanding of the changes occuring
during chemical reactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1433-1436.
doi:10.1021/ed086p1433
Molefe, L., & Stears, M. (2014). Exploring ore-service teacher's preferences of
laboratory activities in undergraduate science courses. Annual meeting of the
Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education (SAARMSTE), (pp. 89-94). Port Elizabeth .
Moll, L. C. (1990). Vygotsky and education. Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173674
Moloi, M., & Chetty, M. (2011). Trends in achievement of grade 6 pupils in South
Africa. Retrieved from SACMEQ III reports:
http://www.sacmeq.org/?q=sacmeq-members/south-africa/sacmeq-report
Moog, R. (2020). The POGIL project. Retrieved from The POGIL project:
http:/www.pogil.org
Moog, R., & Spencer, J. (2008). POGIL: Process oriented guided inquiry iearning. ACS
Symposium series 994. American Chemical Society. doi:10.1021/bk-2008-
0994
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
252
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015: International
results in mathematics. Boston College, TIMSS and PIRLS International Study
Centre. Avalilable on http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-
results. doi:10.3102/1076998619882030
Nadelson, L. (2009). How can true enquiry happen in K-16 science education. Science
Education, 18(1), 48-57.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students dont learn chemistry: Chemical
misconceptions. Journal for Chemical Education, 69(3), 191-196.
doi:10.1021/ed069p191
Nelson , T. O. (1999). Cognition versus metacognition. In Sternberg R. J. (E.d). The
nature of cognittion. MIT press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/4877.003.0023
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Ergonomics, 16(6), 892-
899. doi:10.1080/00140137308928443
Nieuwenhuis, J. (2011). Introducing qualitative research. In K. Maree, First Steps in
Research (pp. 47-66). Van Shaik Publishers.
Novak, J. D. (1977). A theory of education. Cornell University Press.
Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1985). The particulate nature of matter in the gaseous
phase. In R. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien, In Children's Ideas in Science (pp. 124-
142). Open University Press.
Oche, E. S. (2012). Assessing the relative effectiveness of three teaching methods in
the measurement of student achievement in mathematics. Journal of Emerging
Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS), 479-486.
Oktaviani, N. K., Prastika, A. P., Fajaroh, F., & Suharti, S. (2020). Incorporation of
polya’s problem solving into process guide inquiry in learning buffer solution. In
AIP Conference Proceedings, 2215(1), 20016. doi:10.1063/5.0000692
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
253
O'Toole, J. M., & Schefter, M. (2002). Patterns of student difficulty with science text in
undergraduate biology courses. International Journal of Learning, 15(1), 133-
148. doi:10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v15i01/45565
Ozgelen, S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2012). Exploring the development
of preservice science educators' views on the nature of science in inquiry-based
laboratory instruction. Journal of Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1551-
1570. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9321-2
Paans, W., Nieweg, R., Vermeulen, M., & van der Werf, F. (2008). Case study tutorial
with guided reasoning: Developing self evaluation of critical thinking and clinical
reasoning skills. In N. C. Facione, & P. A. Facione, Critical Thinking and Clinical
Reasoning in the Health Sciences: An international multidisciplinary teaching
anthology (pp. 131-144). The California Academic Press.
Pacific Crest. (2013). Process education. Retrieved from
http://pcrest.com/PC/PE/index.html
Pascarella, E., & Terenzin, P. (2005). How college affects students volume 2. Jossey-
Bass.
Passmore, C., Stewart, J., & Cartier, J. (2009). Model-based inquiry and school
science: Creating connections. School Science & Mathematics, 109(7), 394-
402. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17870.x
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Edition). Sage.
Paul, R., Binker, A. J., & Weil, D. (1990). Critical thinking handbook: K - 3. Foundation
for Critical Thinking.
Pedaste, M., Macots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T.,
& Tsourlidark, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the
enquiry cycle. Education Research Review, 14, 47-61.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
254
Pennar, L. A., Batsche, G. M., Knoff, H. M., & Nelson, D. L. (1993). The challenge in
mathematics and science education: Psychology's response. American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10139-000
Pestalozzi, J. H. (2012). Letters on early education: Addressed by J. P. Greaves.
London: Forgotten Books. doi:10.1515/9783110889758.45
Peverill, M., McLaughlin, K. A., Finn, A. S., & Sheridan, M. A. (2016). Working memory
filtering continues to develop into late adolescence. Development cognitive
neuroscience, 18, 78-88. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2016.02.004
Piaget , J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of physical causality. Harcourt Brace &
Company. doi:10.4324/9781315009636
Pikoli, M. (2020). Using guided inquiry learning with multipler representations to
reduce misconceptions of chemistry teacher candidates on acid-base concept.
International Journal of Active Learning, 5(1), 1-10.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accomodation
of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science
Education, 66(2), 211-217. doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207
Potgieter, M., & Davidowitz, B. (2010). Grade 12 achievement rating in new national
senior certificate as indication of preparedness for tertiary chemistry. South
African Journal of Chemistry, 63, 75-82. Retrieved from
http://journals.sabinet.co.za/sajchem/
Potgieter, M., Rogan, J. M., & Howie, S. (2005). Chemical concepts inventory of grade
12 learners up to fountation year students. African Journal of Research
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(2), 121-134.
doi:10.1080/10288457.2005.10740583
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
255
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of
Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-131. doi:10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2004.tb00809.x
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods:
Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 123-138. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x
Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning. (2010). What is process oriented guided
inquiry learning (POGIL)? Retrieved from http://www.pogil.org:
http://www.pogil.org.
Rahayu, R. Y., & Sutrisno, H. (2019). The effect of chemistry learning based on
analogy on higher order thinking skills of senior high school students in
equilibrium concepts. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(12).
Ramnarain, U., & Schuster, D. (2014). The pedagogical orientations of South African
physical sciences teachers towards inquiry or direct instructional approaches.
Research in Science Education, 44(4),, 627-650. doi:10.1007/s11165-013-
9395-5
Renee, S., Lantz, J. M., & Ruder, S. M. (2019). The process. In S. R. Simonson, An
introduction to process oriented guided inquiry learning for those who wish to
empower learners (pp. 42-68). Stylus publishing.
Rochelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change. Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0203_1
Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slow down may be a way to speed up! Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(1), 43-50. doi:10.1177/002248718603700110
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Adaptation and understanding: A case for new
cultures of schooling. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. (. Mandl,
International Perspectives on the Design of Technology-supported Learning
Environments (pp. 149-163). Routledge.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
256
Schmidt, H.‐J. (1990). Secondary school students’ strategies in stoichiometry.
International Journal of Science Education, 12(4), 457-471.
doi:10.1080/0950069900120411
Selvaratnam, M., & Frazer, M. J. (1982). Problem solving in chemistry. Heinemann
Educational Publishers. doi:10.1021/ed056p377
Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on
chemical thinking. Journal of Chemistry Education and Practice, 15(1), 10-23.
doi:10.1039/c3rp00111c
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research
projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. doi:10.3233/efi-2004-22201
Simonson, S. R. (2019). An introduction to process oriented guided inquiry learning
for those who want to empower learners. Stylus Publishing.
Smith, J. K., Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Making it stick:
The science of successful learning. Belknap Press.
doi:10.1080/00220671.2015.1053373
Stanford, C., Moon, A., Towns, M., & Cole, R. (2016). Analysis of instructor facilitation
strategies and their influences on student argumentation: A case study of a
process oriented guided inquiry learning physical science classroom. Journal
of Chemical Education, 93(9), 1501-1513. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00993
Staver, J. R., & Bay, M. (1987). Analysis of the project synthesis goal cluster orientatio
and inquiry emphasis of elementary science textbooks. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 24(7), 629-643. doi:10.1002/tea.3660240704
Stott, A. (2020). Influence of context on stoichiometry conceptual and algorithmic
subject matter knowledge among South African physical sciences teachers.
Journal of Chemical Education, (97) 5, 1239-1246.
doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01459
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
257
Sunday, E. I., Ibemenji, K.-A. G., & Alamina, J. I. (2019). Effect of problem-solving
teaching technique on students’ stoichiometry academic performance in senior
secondary school chemistry in Nigeria. Asian Journal of Advanced Research
and Reports, 1-11. doi:10.9734/ajarr/2019/v4i330110
Sweet, M., & Michaelsen, L. K. (2012). Team-based learning in social sciences and
humanities: Group work that works to generate critical thinking and
engagement. Stylus.
Taasoobshirazi, G., & Glynn, S. M. (2009). College students solving chemistry
problems: A theoretical model of expertise. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 46(10), 1070-1089. doi:10.1002/tea.20301
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative
evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2) , 237-246.
Thomas, T. (2011). Developing first year students' critical thinking skills. Canadian
Center of Science Education, 7(4), 26.
Tobin, K. (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Tornee, N., Bunterm, T., Lee, K., & Muchimapura, S. (2019). Examining the
effectiveness of guided inquiry with problem-solving process and cognitive
function training in a high school chemistry course. Pedagogies: An
International Journal, 14(2), 126-149. doi:10.1080/1554480x.2019.1597722
Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from
four institutional case studies. Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740-763.
doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0056
Vance, K., Kulturel-Konak, S., & Konak, S. (2014). Assessing teamwork skills and
knowledge. IEEE Intergrated STEM education conference (ISEC).
doi:10.1109/isecon.2014.6891052
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
258
Veenman, M. V. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Definitions, constituents,
and their intricate relation with cognition. In A. Zohar, & Y. J. Dori, Metacognition
in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 21-36). Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_2
Vhurumuku, E., & Dudu, W. T. (2017). A comparison of South Africa grade 11 learners’
and pre-service teachers’ understandings of nature of science. The Online
Journal of New Horizons in Education, 7(2), 1-5. Retrieved from
https://www.tojned.net/journals/tojned/articles/v07i02/v07i02-01.pdf
Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-
based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. CBE-Life
Sciences Education, 14(1), 3. doi:10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
Villagonzalo, E. C. (2014). Process oriented guided inquiry learning: An effective
approach in enhancing students’ academic performance. DLSU Research
Congress.
Vogel, E. K., McCullough, A. W., & Machizawa, M. G. (2005). Neutral measures reveal
individual differences in controlling access to working memory. Nature, 438(24),
500-503. doi:10.1038/nature04171
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.
doi:10.1017/s0033291700026155
Wadworth, B. J. (1989). Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development.
Longman.
Walser, T. M. (2009). An action research study of student self-assessment in higher
education. Innovations in higher education, 34(5), 299-306.
doi:10.1007/s10755-009-9116-1
Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative
conceptions in science. In Gabel D. L. (Ed). Handbook of research on science
teaching and learning (pp 177-210). Macmillan.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
259
Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking. Why is it so hard to teach? American
Educator, 8-19. doi:10.3200/aepr.109.4.21-32
Wilujeng, I., & Hastuti, P. W. (2020). Development the innovation science learning
based on technology embedded scientific inquiry (TESI) to improve problem
solving skills and curiosity of junior high school students. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 1440(1), 12084. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1440/1/012084
Yiga, S. I., Khoarai, L., Khosana, T., Lesupi, R., Mduli, J., Shadwell, T., . . . Joubert,
G. (2019). Profile of factors influencing academic motivation among grade 6
and 7 learners at a state school. South African Journal of Childhood Education,
9(1). doi:10.4102/sajce.v9i1.623
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and
middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–223.
doi:10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). Metacognition in science education. Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6
Zohar, A., Weinberger, Y., & Tamir, P. (1994). The effect of the biology critical thinking
project on the the development of critical thinking skills. Journal of research in
science teaching, 31(2), 183-196. doi:10.1002/tea.3660310208
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
260
Appendices
Appendix 1: Pre- intervention test
Pre-intervention test Stoichiometry grade 11
Time: 1 hour Total = 50 marks
Answer ALL the following questions showing ALL the calculations as clearly as
possible. DO NOT write answers only. Write all final answers to 2 decimal places.
1. There are 0,2 moles of pure Na in a crucible. Calculate the mass of the Na in the crucible.
(3)
2. How many O atoms are present in 245g sample of CO2?
(5)
3.
3(a)
CuO(s) + H2(g) → Cu(s) + H2O(g)
Consider the balanced reaction above.
If 25g of CuO reacts completely in the reaction, calculate the mass of Cu produced in the reaction.
(5)
3(b) Calculate the volume of H2 used. (5)
4. Given the balanced chemical reaction:
2NO(g) + O2(g) → 2NO2(g)
Define the term limiting reagent.
(2)
4(b) Calculate the mass of nitrogen dioxide that can be made when 20g of NO react with 20g of O2 in the gaseous phase.
(8)
5. Which of the following solutions has the highest concentration of chloride ions?
• 10g of NaCl dissolved in 50cm3 of solution.
• 15g of CaCl2 dissolved in 100 cm3 of solution.
• 20g of CrCl3 dissolved in 125 cm3 of solution.
(8)
6.
6(a)
15cm3 of 0,4moldm-3 solution of H2SO4 reacted with 20cm3 of NaOH of concentration 0,5 moldm-3.
Write a balanced equation of this reaction
(2)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
261
6(b) Calculate the number of moles of H2SO4
(3)
6(c) Calculate the number of moles of NaOH
(3)
6(d) Which of the two, H2SO4 or NaOH was in excess?
(2)
6(e) How many grams of H2O was produced in this reaction?
(4)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
262
Appendix 2: Memorandum for pre-intervention test
1. n = 𝑚
𝑀 √
0,2 = 𝑚
23 √
m = 4,6 g √
(3)
2. n = 𝑚
𝑀 √ M(CO2) = 12+16+16 =
44g/mol
n = 245
44 √
m = 5.57 moles √ 1 mole CO2 = 2 moles O atoms 5,57 moles CO2 = x √ x = 5.57 x 2 √ x= 11,14 moles
n = 𝑁
𝑁𝐴
11,14 = 𝑁
6.02 x 1023√
n = 6.7 x1024 O atoms √
(7)
3(a) If n = 𝑚
𝑀 √ M(CuO) = 63.5+16 = 79.5g/mol √
n = 25
79.5 √
n = 0,31 moles √ 1 mole CuO produce 1 mole Cu √ 0,31 moles CuO produce 0,31 moles Cu Mass of Cu
n = 𝑚
𝑀
0,31 = 𝑚
63,5 √
n = 19,69 g of Cu √
(7)
3(b) CuO(s) + H2(g) → Cu(s) + H2O(g) 1 mole : 1 mole √ 0,31 moles CuO: x x = 0,31 moles H2
n = 𝑉
𝑉𝑚 0,31 =
𝑉
22.4 √ V of H2 = 6,94 dm3 √
(3)
4(a) A limiting reagent is a substance that is used up first in a chemical reaction and it determines the amount of product formed. √√
(2)
4(b) Moles of NO moles of O2
n = 𝑚
𝑀 n =
𝑚
𝑀 √
n = 20
30 √ n =
20
32
n = 0,67 moles √ n = 0,625 moles √ 2NO(g) + O2(g) → 2NO2(g) 2 moles : 1 mole
(7)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
263
0,67 moles : x x = 0, 335 moles √ 0,67 moles NO react with 0,335 moles O2 We have 0,625 moles O2 (Helsdingen, Van Gog, & & Van M erriënboer, 2011; Moog R. , 2020) Therefore, NO is limiting 2NO(g) + O2(g) → 2NO2(g) 2 moles 2 moles 0,67 moles x x = 0,67 moles NO2 √
0,67 = 𝑚
46 m = 30,82 g √
Question 5
NaCl CaCl2 CrCl3
Molar masses of each compound
23+35.45
= 58,45g/mol
40+35.45+35.45 =
110,9 g/mol
52+35,45+35,45+35,45
= 158,35 g/mol √
(1)
50/1000 = 0,05 dm3 100/1000 = 0,1 dm3 125/1000 = 0,125 dm3 √
(1)
Calculate concentration of each salt
c = 𝑚
𝑀𝑉
c = 10
58,45 𝑥 0,05
c = 𝑚
𝑀𝑉
c = 15
110.9 𝑥 0,1
c = 𝑚
𝑀𝑉
c = 20
158,35 𝑥 0,1250
c = 3,42 mol/dm3 √ c = 1,35 mol/dm3 √ c = 1.01 mol/dm3 √ (3)
Calculate concentration of chloride ions
1 mole of NaCl produces
1 mole of Cl-
3.42 mole of NaCl produces 3.42 mol/dm3 Cl- ions
1 mole of CaCl2 produces
2 mole of Cl-
1.35 moles of NaCl produces 2.7 mol/dm3 Cl- ions
1 mole of NaCl produces
3 mole of Cl- √
1.01 moles of NaCl produces 3.03 mol/dm3 Cl- ions √√
(1)
(2)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
264
NaCl has the highest concentration of Cl- ions √ (1)
6a) H2SO4 + 2NaOH Na2SO4 + 2H2O √√ (2)
6b) c = 𝑛
𝑉 √ 0.4 =
𝑛
15𝑥10−3 √ n = 0.006 mole √ (3)
6c) c = 𝑛
𝑉 √ 0.5 =
𝑛
20𝑥10−3 √ n = 0.01 moles √ (3)
6d) H2SO4 : NaOH 1 : 2 0.006 : x √ X = 0.012 moles NaOH needed H2SO4 is in excess√
(2)
6e) NaOH : H2O 2 : 2 0.01 : x √ X = 0.01 moles H2O produced
n = 𝑚
𝑀 √ 0.01 =
𝑚
18 √ m = 0.18g H2O √
(4)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
265
Appendix 3: Post-intervention test
Post-intervention test Stoichiometry grade 11
Time: 1 hour Total = 50 marks
Answer ALL the following questions showing ALL the calculations as clearly as possible. DO NOT write answers only. Write all final answers to 2 decimal places.
1. There are 0,5 moles of pure Mg in a crucible.
Calculate the mass of the Mg in the crucible.
(3)
2. How many moles of O atoms are present in 25g sample of N2O4?
(7)
3.
3(a)
CaO(s) + CO2(g) → CaCO3(s)
Consider the balanced reaction above.
If 25g of CaO reacts completely in the reaction, calculate the volume of CO2 used.
(5)
3(b) Calculate the mass of CaCO3 produced. (5)
4(a) Given the balanced chemical reaction: 2H2(g) + O2(g) → 2H2O(g)
Define the term limiting reagent.
(2)
4(b) Calculate the mass of water that can be made from 20g of H2 and 40g of O2 in the gaseous phase.
(8)
5. Which of the following solutions has the highest concentration of HYDROGEN IONS?
• 10g of H2SO4 dissolved in 250cm3 of solution.
• 15g of HCl dissolved in 100 cm3 of solution.
(7)
6. There are 20cm3 of HCl with concentration 0,3moldm-3 which react with 23cm3 of NaOH of concentration 0,25 moldm-3.
a) Write a balanced equation of this reaction
b) Which of the two, HCl or NaOH was in excess?
c) How many grams of H2O was produced in this reaction?
(2) (7) (4)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
266
Appendix 4: Memorandum for post-intervention test
1. n = 𝑚
𝑀 √
0,5 = 𝑚
24 √
m = 12 g √
(3)
2. n = 𝑚
𝑀 √ M(N2O4) = 14X2+16X4 = 92g/mol
n = 25
92 √
m = 0,27 moles √
1 mole N2O4 = 4 moles O atoms
0,27 moles N2O4 = x √
x = 0,27 x 4 √
x= 1,08 moles O atoms √√
(7)
3.
c) If n = 𝑚
𝑀 √ M(CaO) = 40+16 = 56g/mol
n = 25
56 √
n = 0,45 moles √
1 mole CaO reacts with 1 mole CO2 √
0,45 moles CuO reacts with 0,45 moles CO2
Volume of CO2
n = 𝑉
𝑉𝑚
0,45 = 𝑉
22,4 √
n = 10,08 dm3 of CO2 √
d) Mass of CaCO3 produced
1 mole CaO produce 1 mole CaCO3 √
0,45 moles CuO produce 0,45 moles CaCO3
(6)
(4)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
267
n = 𝑚
𝑀 √
0,45 = 𝑚
(40+12+48) √
m = 45 g of CaCO3 √
4.
a) A limiting reagent is a reactant which get used up first during a
reaction and it determines the amount of product formed. √√
b) Number of moles of H2
n = 𝑚
𝑀
n = 20
2 √
n = 10 moles of H2 √
Number of moles of O2
n = 𝑚
𝑀
n = 40
32 √
n = 1,25 moles of O2 √
From equation of reaction
2 moles H2 reacts with 1 mole O2
So 1,25 moles O2 reacts with 1,25x2 = 2,5 moles H2 √
We have 10 moles H2, therefore
The H2 is in excess and O2 is limiting reactant.
From the equation, 1 mole of O2 produces 2 moles of H2O
Therefore 1,25 moles O2 will produce 1,25 x 2 moles = 2,5 moles
H2O √
Mass of H2O produced
n = 𝑚
𝑀
2,5 = 𝑚
18 √
n = 45 g of H2O √
(2)
(6)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
268
5 a) b)
H2SO4 HCl
Molar masses of each compound (Prince M . , 2004)
2x1+32x1+16x4 = 98g/mol 1x1+35.5x1 = 36.5 g/mol
Calculate concentration of each
c = 𝑚
𝑀𝑉
c = 10
98 𝑥 0,25 c = 0.41 mol/dm3
c = 𝑚
𝑀𝑉
c = 15
36.5 𝑥 0,1 c = 4.1 mol/dm3
Calculate concentration of hydrogen ions
1 mole of H2SO4 produces 2 moles of
H+ Therefore
0.41 moles H2SO4 produce 0.82
moles H+
1 mole of HCl produces 1 moles
of H+ Therefore
4.1 moles HCl produce 4.1 moles
H+
HCl has the highest concentration of H+ ions
6. a) HCl + NaOH NaCl + H2O
b) c = 𝑛
𝑉 0,3 =
𝑛
20𝑥10−3
n = 0,006 mole HCl
1 mole HCl reacts with 1 mole NaOH
c = 𝑛
𝑉 0,25 =
𝑛
23𝑥10−3
n = 0,00575 mole NaOH
HCl is in excess
c) NaOH : H2O
1 moles : 1 moles
0,00575 moles: x moles x = 0,00575 moles H2O
(1)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(7)
(4)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
269
n = 𝑚
𝑀 0,00575 =
𝑚
18 m = 0,1035 g H2O
(Chi M. T ., 2009; C hi M. T., 2011)
Appendix 5: Marking guidelines.
The work done by learners in the pre-intervention test and post-intervention test was
coded with the assistance of marking guidelines on table as well as the memoranda on
the appendices section.
Marking guidelines for pre-intervention test and post-intervention test
Question Codes Expected learner activity 1 Intermediate Correct formula
Correct substitution Appropriate answer
Elementary Correct formula Wrong substitution Wrong answer
Novice Wrong formula Wrong answer
No response written
2 Advanced Correct formula for number of moles n = 𝑚
𝑀
Correct substitution Correct number of moles = 5.57 moles Correct ratio of 1:2 Correct calculation of number of moles = 11.14 moles
Correct formula for number of moles n = 𝑁
𝑁𝐴
Correct substitution Correct number of atoms = 6.7 x1024 O atoms {all steps well done}
Competent Correct formula for number of moles n = 𝑚
𝑀
Correct substitution Correct number of moles = 5.57 moles Wrong ratio of 1:2 or no ratio at all Calculation of number of moles
Correct formula for number of moles n = 𝑁
𝑁𝐴
Correct substitution Incorrect number of atoms {only 1 step not done appropriately}
Intermediate Correct formula for number of moles n = 𝑚
𝑀
Incorrect substitution Incorrect number of moles No ratio used
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
270
Correct formula for number of moles n = 𝑁
𝑁𝐴
Correct substitution of wrong number of moles Incorrect number of atoms {only 2 steps appropriately done}
Elementary Correct formula for number of moles n = 𝑚
𝑀
Correct substitution Correct number of moles No ratio used {only one step appropriately done}
Novice Wrong formula used Wrong substitution Wrong answer
No response
3a Advanced Correct formula n = 𝑚
𝑀
Correct substitution Appropriate answer Correct ratio of 1:1 Correct number of moles of Cu
Correct formula n = 𝑚
𝑀
Correct mass of Cu Competent Correct formula n =
𝑚
𝑀
Correct substitution Appropriate answer No ratio used Correct number of moles of Cu
Correct formula n = 𝑚
𝑀
Correct mass of Cu Intermediate Correct formula n =
𝑚
𝑀
Correct substitution Appropriate answer Correct ratio of 1:1 Correct number of moles of Cu
Correct formula n = 𝑚
𝑀
Correct mass of Cu Elementary Correct formula n =
𝑚
𝑀
Correct substitution Appropriate answer
Novice Correct formula Wrong substitution Wrong answer
3b Intermediate Correct ratio 1:1
Correct formula n = 𝑉
𝑉𝑚
Correct substitution Correct volume of H2 = 6,94 dm3
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
271
Elementary Correct formula n = 𝑉
𝑉𝑚
Incorrect substitution Incorrect volume of H2
Novice Nothing written
Wrong formula Wrong substitution Wrong answer
4a Intermediate Complete definition of limiting reactant Elementary Partially correct definition Novice No definition
given Wrong definition
4b Advanced Correct formula n = 𝑚
𝑀
Correct substitution Correct numbers of moles of NO = 0,67 moles and O2 = 0,625 moles Correct mole ratio of 2:1 Correct number of equivalent moles of O2 or NO Correct identification of NO as the limiting reactant Correct ratio of 2:2 Correct number of moles of NO2 = 0,67 moles
Correct formula n = 𝑚
𝑀
Correct substitution Correct mass of NO2 = 30,82 grams
Competent Correct formula n = 𝑚
𝑀
Incorrect substitution incorrect numbers of moles of NO and O2 Correct mole ratio of 2:1 Correct number of equivalent moles of O2 or NO Correct identification of NO as the limiting reactant Incorrect ratio of 2:2 Incorrect number of moles of NO2
Intermediate Correct formula n = 𝑚
𝑀
Incorrect substitution incorrect numbers of moles of NO and O2 Incorrect number of equivalent moles of O2 or NO Incorrect identification of NO as the limiting reactant Incorrect ratio of 2:2 Incorrect number of moles of NO2
Elementary Correct formula n = 𝑚
𝑀
Incorrect substitution Incorrect number of equivalent moles of O2 or NO Incorrect identification of NO as the limiting reactant Incorrect ratio of 2:2 Incorrect number of moles of NO2
Novice Nothing written
Correct formula n = 𝑚
𝑀
Incorrect substitution Incorrect ratio of 2:2 Incorrect number of moles of NO2
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
272
5 Advanced Correct conversion of units to 0,05dm3; 0,1dm3 and 0,125dm3 Correct calculation of concentration of each of the three salts of 3,42dm3; 1,35dm3; and 1,01dm3 respectively Use of correct ratio Correct calculation of number of concentrations of chloride ions in each salt Correct comparison of the of the concentration of the chloride ions Correct final answer
Competent Correct conversion of units to 0,05dm3; 0,1dm3 and 0,125dm3 Correct calculation of concentration of each of the three salts of 3,42dm3; 1,35dm3; and 1,01dm3 respectively No comparison of the of the concentration of the chloride ions
Intermediate Correct conversion of units to 0,05dm3; 0,1dm3 and 0,125dm3 Correct calculation of concentration of each of the three salts with minor errors. No comparison of the of the concentration of the chloride ions
Elementary Incorrect conversion of units Incorrect calculation of concentration of salts No comparison of the of the concentration of the chloride ions
Novice No response Wrong formula Wrong substitution Wrong answer
6a Intermediate Correct formula Correct substitution Appropriate answer
Elementary Correct formula Wrong substitution Wrong answer
Novice Wrong formula Wrong answer
No response written
6b Intermediate Correct formula Correct substitution Appropriate answer
Elementary Correct formula Wrong substitution Wrong answer
Novice Wrong formula Wrong answer
No response written
6c Intermediate Correct formula Correct substitution Appropriate answer
Elementary Correct formula Wrong substitution
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
273
Wrong answer Novice Wrong formula
Wrong answer No response written
6d Intermediate Correct formula Correct substitution Appropriate answer
Elementary Correct formula Wrong substitution Wrong answer
Novice Wrong formula Wrong answer
No response written
6e Intermediate Correct formula Correct substitution Appropriate answer
Elementary Correct formula Wrong substitution Wrong answer
Novice Wrong formula Wrong answer
No response written
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
278
Appendix 8: Letter of informed consent for principals
Date:
23/04/2019
Dear Principal. (Chi M. T., 2011; C hi M. T ., 2009)
RE: REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT A RESEARCH AT YOUR
SCHOOL.
I am a student in the Department of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education
at the University of Pretoria, studying for a Doctoral degree (PhD). To fulfil the
requirements of the course, I must conduct a research study entitled “Exploring how
Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning on high school chemistry learners elicit
understanding of stoichiometry.” I request your permission to collect data at your
school.
The aim of the study is to identify how physical science learners develop
understanding as they engage in process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL)
activities. The study analysed the learners’ reasoning during problem-solving as they
developed understanding. In this study a grade 11 physical science teacher was
trained to teach using POGIL outside normal working hours. That teacher shall teach
three lessons his or her grade 11 physical science class (30 learners) during normal
teaching time under observation by the researcher using POGIL. The three lessons
were video, and audio recorded and soon after the lesson the learners was interviewed
after school hours. This study is very important for both teachers and learners because
it will reveal to the teacher how learners’ reason and how they solve stoichiometry
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
279
questions. This will help the teachers to find ways of assisting their learners to improve
their understanding.
All information related to the study will be treated anonymously when reporting results.
The identity of participating schools, teachers and learners will be strictly confidential.
Your positive consideration of my request will be highly appreciated.
Should you agree to have the study conducted at your school, we request you to kindly
read and sign the attached consent form. Thank you very much for spending time to
consider this request.
Kind regards.
Mr. Charles Mamombe Signature: Date: 23/04/2019
(Doctoral Student, University of Pretoria)
Student Number: 12293581
Supervisor: Dr. K.C. Mathabathe Signature Date: 23/04/2019
(Bybee, 2010)
Informed consent form for data collection
Please read the conditions below and sign if you agree that your school may
participate.
I understand and agree that:
1. The physical science educator will be trained to teach using POGIL for two
hours.
2. The physical science teacher will be observed three lessons by the researcher
while teaching his/her class using POGIL during normal teaching time at my
school.
3. The learners will be interviewed by the researcher after normal teaching time
at the school in the presence of their usual teacher.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
280
4. The identity of the school, the teacher and the learners will be held in the
strictest confidence.
5. This school’s participation in the study is voluntary, and the school can withdraw
at any stage of the research.
6. I am not waiving any human or legal rights by agreeing to participate in this
study.
7. I verify by signing below that I have read and understood the conditions listed
above.
Principal Signature: …………………………………..
School’s stamp:
(Dudu W. T., 2014; Ram narain & Schuster, 2014)
(Dudu W. T., 2014)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
281
Appendix 9: Letter of informed consent for educators
Date: 23/04/2019
Dear Teacher
RE: REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY.
You may be aware that the performance of South African high school learners in
physical science has been declining for almost a decade now. We are conducting a
research study in an attempt to find a way of finding the possible cause of such low
performance. The purpose of this study is to investigate the thinking patterns of the
learners, their reasoning and problem-solving skills as they engage in stoichiometric
activities. We have identified that stoichiometry is a challenging topic which constitutes
a considerable percentage of the chemistry section in physical science.
To achieve this, we intend to train you to teach using process-oriented guided inquiry
learning (POGIL) in the topic stoichiometry. This teaching method has been identified
to yield good results with regards to the understanding of learners. After training for
about two hours you will be asked to teach stoichiometry to your grade 11 physical
sciences class under observation by the researchers. You will be having full support
from the researchers with regards to POGIL teaching and class activities. You may
seek assistance before, during and after the lessons. We will provide with the lesson
plans and all the materials needed, and you may request any extra materials you may
need for the lessons. In this study you have the opportunity to share your views
towards the use of POGIL. You are therefore invited to participate in the study.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
282
If you are interested in participating in the research, your role will be to teach three
lessons to your grade 11 physical science class for about three hours in total on the
topic stoichiometry. The decision to participate in this study is entirely yours. You have
the right to decline participation now or afterward you initially agreed. This means that
if you agree now you still have the right to change your mind at a later stage. Your
participation or no participation in the study and the outcomes of the study will have
NO consequences on your profession as a teacher, or on your personal reputation.
Your identity and that of the school will be strictly confidential. You are free to withdraw
from the study anytime.
If you are willing to participate in this research, please kindly sign on the attached
declaration form.
Kind regards.
Mrs Charles Mamombe Signature Date: 23/04/2019
(Doctoral Student, University of Pretoria)
Student Number: 12293581
Supervisor: Dr. K.C. Mathabathe Signature Date: 23/04/2019
Declaration of informed consent
I have read, and I understand the above information. I voluntarily agree to participate
in the research study described above.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
283
I DO AGREE to be trained to teach using POGIL
I DO NOT agree for my child to participate
I DO AGREE to teach using POGIL
I DO NOT agree teach using POGIL
I DO AGREE to be VIDEO recorded
I DO NOT AGREE to be VIDEO recorded
I DO AGREE to be AUDIO recorded
I DO NOT AGREE to be AUDIO recorded
I DO AGREE to be interviewed by POGIL experts
I DO NOT agree to be interviewed by POGIL experts
Teacher’s signature: ................................................ Date: .........................................
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
284
Appendix 10: Letter of informed consent for parent or guardian
Date: 23/04/2019
Dear Parent/Guardian
RE: REQUEST FOR YOUR CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY
You may be aware that the performance of South African high school learners in
physical science has been declining for almost a decade now. We are conducting a
research study in an attempt to find a way of finding the possible cause of such low
performance. The purpose of this study is to investigate the thinking patterns of the
learners, their reasoning and problem-solving skills as they engage in stoichiometric
activities. We have identified that stoichiometry is a challenging topic which constitutes
a considerable percentage of the chemistry section in physical science.
To achieve this, we intend to train your child’s physical science teacher to teach using
process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) in the topic stoichiometry. This
teaching method has been identified to yield good results with regards to the
understanding of learners. We ask permission for your child to participate in the POGIL
lessons taught by their usual teacher under observation by the researchers. Your child
will participate in group activities with classmates, will be video recorded during the
lessons and audio also recorded during interviews. In this study your child may have
the opportunity to participate in this modern teaching approach which may help better
understanding of difficult topics. You are asked whether you wish your child to
participate in the study or not.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
285
If you are interested in allowing your child to participate during the three lessons for
about three hours in total on the topic stoichiometry. The decision for your child to
participate in this study is entirely yours as the parent of guardian. You have the right
to decline participation of your child now or at a later stage. The participation or no
participation by your child in the study and the outcomes of the study will have NO
consequences on your child or yourself. You are free to withdraw your child from the
study anytime. The identity of your child school will be strictly confidential.
If you are willing to that your child participates in this research, please kindly sign on
the attached declaration form.
Kind regards.
Mrs Charles Mamombe Signature Date: 23/04/2019
(Doctoral Student, University of Pretoria)
Student Number: 12293581
Supervisor: Dr. K.C. Mathabathe Signature Date: 23/04/2019
Declaration of informed consent
I have read, and I understand the above information. I voluntarily agree for my child to
participate in the research study described above.
I DO AGREE for my child to be taught using POGIL
I DO NOT AGREE for my child to be taught using POGIL
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
286
I DO AGREE for my child to be VIDEO recorded
I DO NOT AGREE for my child to be VIDEO recorded
I DO AGREE for my child to be AUDIO recorded
I DO NOT AGREE for my child to be AUDIO recorded
Parent’s or guardian’s signature: ..................................... Date: ................................
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
287
Appendix 11: Letter of informed assent of the learner
Date: 23/04/2019
Dear Learner
RE: REQUEST FOR YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY.
You may be aware that the performance of South African high school learners in
physical science has been declining for almost a decade now. We are conducting a
research study in an attempt to find a way of finding the possible cause of such low
performance. The purpose of this study is to investigate the thinking patterns of the
learners, their reasoning and problem-solving skills as they engage in stoichiometric
activities. We have identified that stoichiometry is a challenging topic which constitutes
a considerable percentage of the chemistry section in physical science.
To achieve this, we intend to train your physical science teacher to teach using
process-oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) in the topic stoichiometry. This
teaching method has been identified to yield good results with regards to the
understanding of learners. We ask you to participate in the POGIL lessons taught by
your usual teacher under observation by the researchers. You will participate in group
activities with classmates, will be video recorded during the lessons and audio also
recorded during interviews. In this study you may have the opportunity to participate
in this modern teaching approach which may help you better understand difficult
topics. We ask you whether you wish to participate in the study or not.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
288
If you are interested in participating in this research project, you will be taught for three
lessons, a total of three hours on the topic stoichiometry. The decision to participate
in this study is entirely yours. You have the right to decline participation now or at a
later stage. Your participation or no participation in the study and the outcomes of the
study will have NO consequences on you. You are free to withdraw from the study
anytime. Your identity will be strictly confidential.
If you are willing to participate in this research, please kindly sign on the attached
declaration form.
Kind regards.
Mrs Charles Mamombe Signature Date: 23/04/2019
(Doctoral Student, University of Pretoria)
Student Number: 12293581
Supervisor: Dr. K.C. Mathabathe Signature Date: 23/04/2019
Declaration of informed consent
I have read, and I understand the above information. I voluntarily agree to participate
in the research study described above.
I DO AGREE to be taught using POGIL
I DO NOT AGREE to be taught using POGIL
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
289
I DO AGREE to be VIDEO recorded
I DO NOT AGREE to be VIDEO recorded
I DO AGREE to be AUDIO recorded
I DO NOT AGREE to be AUDIO recorded
Learner’s signature: ..................................... Date: ................................
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
290
Appendix 12: POGIL worksheet
Limiting and Excess Reactants
Is there enough of each chemical reactant to make a desired amount of product?
Why?
If a factory runs out of tyres while manufacturing cars, production stops. No more cars
can be fully built without ordering more tires.
A similar thing happens in a chemical reaction. If there are fixed amounts of reactants
to work with in a chemical reaction, one of the reactants may be used up first. This
prevents the production of more products.
In this activity, you will look at several situations where the process or
reaction is stopped because one of the required components has been
used up.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
291
Model 1 – Assembling a Race Car (10 minutes)
1. How many of each part are needed to construct 1 complete race car?
Body (B) Cylinder (Cy) Engine (E) Tyre (Tr)
2. How many of each part would be needed to construct 3 complete race cars?
Show your work.
Body (B) Cylinder (Cy) Engine (E) Tire (Tr)
3. Assuming that you have 15 cylinders and an unlimited supply of the remaining
parts:
a. How many complete race cars can you make? Show your work.
b. How many of each remaining part would be needed to make this number of
cars? Show your work.
Race Car Part List
Body (B)
Cylinder (Cy)
Engine (E)
Tire (Tr) Race Car
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
292
Model 2 – Manufacturing Race Cars (20 minutes)
Container A
4. Count the number of each Race Car Part present in Container A of Model 2.
Body (B) Cylinder (Cy) Engine (E) Tire (Tr)
5. Complete Model 2 by drawing the maximum number of cars that can be made
from the parts in Container A. Show any excess parts remaining also.
6. A student says “I can see that we have three car bodies in Container A, so we
should be able to build three complete race cars.” Explain why this student is
incorrect in this case. (Bruner J. S., 1961)
7. Suppose you have a very large number (dozens or hundreds) of tyres and
bodies, but you only have 5 engines and 12 cylinders.
a. How many complete cars can you build? Show your work.
b. Which part (engines or cylinders) limits (stops you from making) the number
of cars that you can make?
Race Car Part List
Body (B)
Cylinder (Cy)
Engine (E)
Tire (Tr)
Race Car
Part
s
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
293
7. Fill in the table below with the maximum number of complete race cars
that can be built from each container of parts (A–E), and indicate which part
limits the number of cars that can be built.
Divide the work evenly among group members. Space is provided below the
table for each group member to show their work. Have each group member
describe to the group how they determined the maximum number of complete
cars for their container. Container A from Model 2 is already completed as an
example.
1 B + 3 Cy + 4 Tr + 1 E = 1 car
Container Bodies Cylinders Tires Engines Max. Number of
Completed Cars
Limiting
Part
A 3 10 9 2 2 Engines
Used = 2
Left = 1
Used = 6
Left = 4
Used = 8
Left = 1
Used = 2
Left = 0
B 50 12 50 5
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
C 16 16 16 16
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
D 4 9 16 6
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
E 20 36 40 24
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
294
9. The Zippy Race Car Company builds toy race cars by the thousands. They do
not count individual car parts. Instead they measure their parts in “oodles” (a
large number of things).
b. Assuming the inventory (list) in their warehouse below, how many race cars
could the Zippy Race Car Company build? Show your work.
Body (B) Cylinder (Cy) Engine (E) Tire (Tr)
4 oodles 5 oodles 8 oodles 8 oodles
c. Explain why it is not necessary to know the number of parts in an “oodle” to
solve the problem in part a. (Ausubel, N ovak, & H anesi an, 1986; Simonson, 2019)
10. Look back at the answers to Questions 8 and 9. Is the component with the smallest
number of parts always the one that limits production? Explain your group’s reasoning.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
295
Model 3 – Assembling Water Molecules (20 minutes)
11. Refer to the chemical reaction in Model 3.
a. How many moles of water molecules are produced if one mole of oxygen
molecules completely reacts?
b. How many moles of hydrogen molecules are needed to react with one mole
of oxygen molecules?
12. Complete Model 3 by drawing the maximum moles of water molecules that
could be produced from the reactants shown and draw any remaining moles
of reactants in the container after reaction as well.
a. Which reactant (oxygen or hydrogen) limited the production of water in
Container Q?
b. Which reactant (oxygen or hydrogen) was present in excess and remained
after the production of water was complete?
Represents 1 mole of H2
Represents 1 mole of O2
Chemical Reactants
Chemical Products
Container Q
Before Reaction
Container Q
After Reaction
Chemical Reaction
2 → 2H2O 2
2H2 + O2
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
296
13. Fill in the table below with the maximum number of moles of water that can be
produced in each container (Q–U). Indicate which reactant limits the quantity
of water produced—this is the limiting reactant. Also show how much of the
other reactant—the reactant in excess—will be left over. Divide the work
evenly among group members. Space is provided below the table for each
group member to show their work. Have each group member describe to the
group how they determined the maximum number of moles of water produced
and the moles of reactant in excess. Container Q from Model 3 is already
completed as an example.
2H2 + O2 → 2H2O
14. Look back at Questions 12 and 13. Is the reactant with the smaller number of
moles always the limiting reactant? Explain your group’s reasoning.
Container Moles of Hydrogen
Moles of Oxygen
Max. Moles of Water
Produced
Limiting Reactant
Reactant in Excess
Q 7 3 6 O2 1 mole H2
Used = 6
Left = 1
Used = 3
Left = 0
R 8 3
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
S 10 5
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
Teacher: 5 5
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
U 8 6
Used =
Left =
Used =
Left =
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
297
Model 4 – Extension Questions (8 minutes)
15. Below are two examples of mathematical calculations that could be performed
to find the limiting reactant for Container U in Question 13.
a. Do both calculations give the same answer to the problem?
b. Which method was used most by your group members in Question 13?
c. Which method seems “easier,” and why?
d. Did your group use any other method(s) of solving this problem that were
scientifically and mathematically correct? If so, explain the method.
Extension Questions (8 minutes)
16. Consider the synthesis of water as shown in Model 3. A container is filled with
10.0 g of H2 and 5.0 g of O2.
a. Which reactant (hydrogen or oxygen) is the limiting reactant in this case?
Show your work. Hint: Notice that you are given reactant quantities in mass
units here, not moles.
What mass of water can be produced? Show your work.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
298
b. Which reactant is present in excess, and what mass of that reactant
remains after the reaction is complete? Show your work.
Extension Questions (12 minutes)
18cm3 of 0,25moldm-3 solution of H2SO4 reacted with 23cm3 of NaOH of
concentration 0,35 moldm-3.
a. Write a balanced equation of this reaction.
b. Calculate the number of moles of H2SO4 .
c. Calculate the number of moles of NaOH.
d. Which of the two, H2SO4 or NaOH was in excess?
e. How many grams of H2O was produced in this reaction?
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
299
Appendix 13: Interview schedule for teachers
1. You have been workshopped to teach using POGIL and you have done so
practically in your class, how was the experience?
2. Do you think POGIL is an effective teaching approach as compared to lecture
method? (Bodner G. M., 1986) (Driver, Osoko, Leach, Scott , & Mortim er, 1994)
3. With your experience what are the advantages of using POGIL?
4. What are the disadvantages of using POGIL?
5. What was the experience of your learners as compared to the usual lessons?
6. During your POGIL lessons what can you comment about the activities done
by the learners?
7. Do you expect your learners to have understood you better than during your
usual lessons? Explain. (Chandrasegar an, Tr eagust, Wal drip, & C handrasegar an, 2009).
8. Do you intend to use POGIL in your future lessons?
Appendix 14: Interview schedule for learner
1. You have been taught using POGIL, what can you comment about the method?
2. Do you think you understand science better or less? Explain
3. Has the POGIL method made you to reason better in science?
4. Did the POGIL method make you to love science? Explain.
5. Do you think you shall perform better in the post test than the first test? Explain
6. Would you like to be taught using POGIL in the other science topics? Explain.
7. Do you expect to pursue your further studies in science related field?
(Anderson R. D ., 2002)
(Karpl us & Thier , 1967)
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
300
Appendix 15: Teacher interview transcription school B
Interviewer: Okay. Good morning ma’am.
Teacher: Good morning sir. How are you?
Interviewer: I am fine, how are you?
Teacher: Good
Interviewer: You have been trained to use POGIL and you have taught your learners
using POGIL
Teacher: Yes
Interviewer: How can you explain to someone what is POGIL?
Teacher: POGIL is a teaching strategy whereby we use group work and learners are
grouped in groups of four sometimes six whereby they have different roles that they
play, and they interchange. At the end of the day all the learners are able to become
managers and able to become document controllers and all the other roles.
Interviewer: Okay can you briefly explain how you implemented POGIL in your
classes?
Teacher: Okay. What I did I had six learners per group, but the groups were fixed. So,
there was no need for me to change them because anyways the roles are rotated. So,
all the learners were able to participate and play every role in the POGIL strategy.
Interviewer: okay, how did your learners respond to POGIL?
Teacher: My learners we very happy with POGIL. Reason being that they are exposed
to different things at a time. They are not fixed to 1 role. They are able to share and
discuss, and every learner was able to participate.
Interviewer: Okay and just an additional question there. How did you see the
participation of the usually slow learners? Did they participate more during the POGIL
activities or they just remained passive?
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
301
Teacher: I think it depends on the topic. Sometimes if they are not well versed with the
topic, they end up being passive and allow others to talk. But at the end of the day
they went back and became a team. It gives pressure if the other group is participating
more, they will be motivated to go with the flow.
Interviewer: During your POGIL lessons what can you comment about the activities
done by the learners?
Teacher: The learners helped each other. The slow learners also participated actively.
Learners gave their many different opinions. The learners argued their answers with
reasoning. Sometimes they requested my opinion when they fail to reach agreement.
Interviewer: Okay. Which of the grades accepted POGIL the most?
Teacher: Grade 10s more than grade 11.
Interviewer: Can you explain. What do you think the grade 10 accepted POGIL more?
Is it because of their age or what?
Teacher: I think it’s because of the age. Grade 10s are very playful. So, if they are in
a group and given the role cards, they are so into the role cards than anything. They
all want to be managers or sometimes refuse. They participate more than grade 11s.
grade 11s are like this is for kids.
Interviewer: When you implemented POGIL how did the learners perform in that topic?
Teacher: I would say the overall performance or participation was much better unlike
if I was the one presenting the lesson. Only a selected few will respond but if it’s a
POGIL almost 50% of the learners are participating. So POGIL encourages teamwork
and more participation.
Interviewer: during the POGIL lessons what can you comment about the activities
done by the learners? Were the activities giving the learners attention or were they too
easy?
Teacher: If I refer to stoichiometry the activities were challenging. But the topic was
more of relating to real life than the lesson. So, it was an eye opener that physical
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
302
science is not all about chemistry or the physics part. So, the learners pay attention
more into the topic. It gets them interested and thinking more.
Interviewer: Initially, how was the performance of your learners in stoichiometry?
Teacher: Uhm, very bad.
Interviewer: and how do you expect your learners to perform in stoichiometry after
POGIL?
Teacher: I would say much better than the way they started.
Interviewer: Do you think you learners if given a choice would prefer POGIL teaching
over other teaching approaches?
Teacher: I think they learners will prefer POGIL teaching because all members in the
group are participating whether they like it or not. So, they are kept in the content.
They cannot go outside of it and they are kept busy.
Interviewer: if POGIL is used in other subjects like mathematics do you think it is going
to be beneficial for the learners?
Teacher: I believe so. Reason being when you are working in a group you are sharing
information. Whatever little data that you have you also feel the need to voice it out so
at the end of the day everyone is able to give their suggestion and in turn they are
getting immediate response. Unlike it’s just a learner working in isolation unlike in a
group.
Interviewer: When using POGIL do you think the learners are easy to control than
when using direct teaching method?
Teacher: Unfortunately, with POGIL you have to be firm. Because sometimes they
become very noisy and disturb the other classes and some will just take advantage of
that the teacher is on that other group and sneak out or something. POGIL needs more
thorough control unlike in the lecture method.
Interviewer: what about the time?
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
303
Teacher: Its very time consuming but at the end of the day you are able to do a lot.
Because sometimes you can give them not just 1 activity. That is what I did when I
was doing revision of paper 2, I gave them different questions. I gave different
questions to different groups. So that when revising we know that we done with the
question paper in one goal. Instead of focusing on 1 question. POGIL is very good and
very helpful
Interviewer: So, you think you will continue using POGIL in your lessons?
Teacher: Exactly. To improve POGIL I would ask the spokesperson from one group to
go around to the other group and explain their experience.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
304
Appendix 16: Teacher interview transcription school A
Interviewer: Okay. Good morning ma’am.
Teacher: Good morning sir.
Interview: How are you?
Teacher: I am fine, how are you?
Interview: I am fine, thank you.
Interviewer: You have been trained to use POGIL and you have taught your learners
using POGIL
Teacher: Yes
Interviewer: How was your experience during POGIL training?
Teacher: POGIL is a wonderful and easy method. Initially I thought it was just a joke
and nothing special which they were training. But I saw the examples which were used
were of other subjects but still I understood them easily.
Interviewer: Yea, they used the example of a business question and everyone got it
right in their groups, right?
Teacher: Yes, that was when I started to see that there could be some magic with this
POGIL method.
Teacher: So, how can you tell someone what is POGIL?
Teacher: POGIL is a method where learners work in groups of two, four or six working
together. The learners do teamwork and help each other to work through the provided
worksheet. The learners have roles like manager, spokesperson and the like and they
rotate the roles after some time.
Interviewer: So, during POGIL how can you explain the actions done by the learners?
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
305
Teacher: Yoh, the learners are so active and each one of them participate actively.
They end up producing a noise that can disturb other groups and other classes. But
the learners finally help each other in the process and solve even the difficult
questions. Each learner has to support their ideas before the group. They cannot just
bring the answer without reason. So, the learner explain why that is the appropriate
answer.
Interviewer: Okay can you briefly explain how you implemented POGIL in your
classes?
Teacher: Okay. It depends with the class. In one of my grades 10 classes I asked them
to make the groups of their own choice. So, the learners sat there according to their
friends and work very well. In one class of the grades 11 I arranged them according to
performance in science. The brightest alone and the lowest alone.
Interviewer: So, arranging brightest learners alone, what was your experience?
Teacher: That’s the best method to do. It gives me time to attend to the slow learners
and I will attend to them in a group. The fast learners will do a lot of work and go from
one activity to another without asking for my help. So, the fast learners learn more.
Interviewer: So, you are basically teaching the slow learners?
Teacher: Not as such. The slow learners themselves go quite fast. It appears that they
are slow when they see the fast learners. But on their own they work very well and
solve difficult questions like number 5 of the second test. They give reasons and
discuss. They are just more quiet than the fast learners.
Interviewer: How long have used POGIL? And in what grades have used it?
Teacher: It’s now about a year since I was trained. I use it in all my grades 10 and 11
classes.
Interviewer: okay, how did your learners respond to POGIL?
Teacher: My learners are very excited to use POGIL. They even ask me to use POGIL
at sometimes. The reason is that they will talking to each other and sometimes they
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
306
can talk about their personal things without the teacher stopping them. So POGIL
makes them to be free and active. Even those learners who usually sleep in the class,
during POGIL everyone is alert and participating actively.
Interviewer: All the learners participate actively during POGIL?
Teacher: Ooh let me say most learners participate actively. When they are doing a
difficult topic, they are passive and need a lot of help there. If they don’t get it the start
doing other things. They can play or just talk other things. If the topic is too easy, they
will be very quiet. Each learner will be working quietly on their own.
Interviewer: If the learners are working individually and quietly as you just said, will
that be POGIL method? (Patton, 2002; Fereday & Muir-Cochr ane, 2006; Thom as D . R., 2006; Nieuw enhuis, 2011)
Teacher: Oh, I see what you say. According to the definition of POGIL that won’t be
POGIL. The learners won’t be following their POGIL roles. So yes, it won’t be POGIL.
So, easy topics don’t work with POGIL.
Interviewer: Okay. Which of the grades accepted POGIL the most?
Teacher: Grade 10s like it more than grade 11.
Interviewer: Can you explain. What do you think the grade 10 accepted POGIL more?
Teacher: I think it is because of the age. Grade 10s are energetic and want to be all
over the place. So, when they are learning using POGIL its their chance to be active
and play as they solve the problem. They will freely talk as they so wish, and their
ideas are quickly heard.
Interviewer: So, as a teacher what is your role during POGIL lessons?
Teacher: during POGIL I will be just making sure that learning is going on. I provide
the worksheets and monitor the time. I observe that there is order, and answer some
of the learners’ questions.
Interviewer: During the POGIL lessons what were you doing? I just saw you walking
up and down.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
307
Teacher: Oh, it’s not just walking up and down. I was checking learners’ work.
Checking how far they are. Checking if they have problems, and if they are working in
groups, because they can leave one learner to do all the work. I was answering some
questions from the groups. I told the spokesperson of one group to go and assist
another group, or to go and get assistance from another group.
Interviewer: When you implemented POGIL how did the learners perform in that topic?
Teacher: My learners perform much better than when I use lecture method. If I have
all the POGIL worksheets I think I will just use POGIL in the whole syllabus.
Interviewer: During the POGIL lessons what can you comment about the activities
done by the learners? Were the activities giving the learners attention or were they too
easy?
Teacher: The first activities were easy because they were about simple real-life
experiences. But when they started stoichiometry the activities were more difficult. The
learners however, followed through the worksheet and solved the problems quite well.
Interviewer: Initially, how was the performance of your learners in stoichiometry?
Teacher: My learners have always found limiting reactant very difficult to understand.
Interviewer: And how do you expect your learners to perform in stoichiometry after
POGIL?
Teacher: They will definitely perform well in the second test because I saw how well
they were doing in the lesson.
Interviewer: Do you think your learners if given a choice, would prefer POGIL teaching
over other teaching approaches?
Teacher: My learners already asked me to tell their mathematics teacher to teach them
using POGIL. My learners like POGIL so much that if a tell them that tomorrow we
shall have a POGIL lesson no one will be absent. They enjoy POGIL lessons.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
308
Interviewer: If POGIL is used in other subjects like mathematics do you think it is going
to be beneficial for the learners?
Teacher: Exactly. My learners already asked for POGIL in mathematics. It means they
are already motivated to learn using POGIL in other subjects. I don’t know if there are
worksheets for mathematics. But because mathematics is difficult for them, they will
perform better when they use POGIL.
Interviewer: When using POGIL do you think the learners are easy to control than
when using direct teaching method?
Teacher: Unfortunately, that’s a challenge. They can disturb other classes because of
their noise and excitement. Strict control is needed during POGIL than during lecture
method. But its better because learners benefit more in POGIL than sleeping in the
lecture method.
Interviewer: What about the time management?
Teacher: Initially I thought its time consuming. But I see that it’s not time consuming
at all. Because if I have done a topic once then its already done. I don’t have to come
back to it again. What my learners do with POGIL will be permanent. But what they do
with lecture method I will repeat it like another three or four times but still they will not
understand as they understand with POGIL.
Interviewer: So, you think you will continue using POGIL in your lessons?
Teacher: Exactly. I think POGIL is the way to go in all subjects. My principal came to
visit my class and sat at some of the groups. She was very excited. She also
understood science and this method is the best. So, for me now I don’t have problem
even if my learners are making noise. She knows they are doing POGIL.
Interviewer: Thank very much for your contributions. Keeping on working with POGIL.
Teacher: Thank you sir. Thank you for your support
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
309
Appendix 17: Learners’ focus group interview school A
Interviewer: Okay good afternoon learners
Learners: Morning sir
Interviewer: Yes, how are you?
Learners: We are fine, thank you sir
Interviewer: I am fine. Yes, today I want to interview you about the POGIL lessons that
we had last week. What is POGIL?
Learner 1: POGIL is a method of working in groups discussing classwork.
Learner 2: POGIL... is when we do the work in groups. When we read together and
answer together.
Learner 3: The method we use to do difficult topics
Interviewer: Okay, how do you like POGIL?
Learner 3: Its very interesting. Its funny but we learn.
Learner 4: We are free to talk many things. We help each other.
Learner 5: No one hears your wrong answers…. yea, only the people in your group
hear and not the whole class.
Interviewer: So, is it a good method that you work in groups during POGIL?
Learner 1: Yes, sir. In the groups we help each other without laughing at one another.
Learner 2: The method was good because we understand. We think of why this answer
is correct because at the group they want you to say the reason. You must show the
working.
Interviewer: Okay
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
310
LEARNER 3: That method it can help me to solve difficult questions without the help
of the teacher. The method shows the steps to answer the questions.
INTERVIEWER: Okay, and you?
LEARNER 5: POGIL method makes science to be easy. Science used to be difficult
but now we understand a lot. We can answer hard questions.
INTERVIEWER: Okay
LEARNER 3: POGIL method is easy because we start with easy activities which make
us understand the real science better.
INTERVIEWER: Okay. Alright. Can you say why you say you understand science
better? You said you understand better?
Learner1: Yes. Because in the past science was difficult to understand. Everyone, or
let’s say most people failed science and mathematics. But now we pass science better
than some subjects. So, it’s because POGIL because …, yea, that’s when we started
to pass. Because POGIL uses easy examples.
Learner 3: POGIL made me to be clever. In the past I used to guess especially multiple
choice, aah. Now I think before I say the answer.
Learner 4: Yea, multiple choice I was just guessing. I never read the question most of
the times. Yea, true. Even some long questions if I see many words, eish, I pick any
formula I see and start substituting. But with POGIL I must ask myself why I pick that
formula.
Interviewer: So POGIL make you increase your reasoning?
Learner 4: Yea, that is what I wanted to say. I can now reason. I am now thinking and
clever.
INTERVIEWER: I think you spoke about that there are easy examples in POGIL
activities. How do examples help you to understand science better?
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
311
LEARNER 2: The examples show me how science is related to the car parts and I can
now give another example that science is related to the clothes that we wear.
Interviewer: To the clothes? How so? Can you explain please?
Learner 2: I am wearing two shoes, two socks, one pants, one shirt. So that is the
same with science because two moles of hydrogen react with one mole of oxygen. It’s
the same ratio.
Interviewer: Ooh I see what you mean. So how does that help you understand
science?
Learner 3: When balancing the equations, you look at the ratio in the same way. You
can’t put on three shoes at the same time, yea.
INTERVIEWER: Okay I think you already answered this question. How has the POGIL
method made you to reason better? In what sense has it made you to reason better?
LEARNER 2: By using easy examples and many examples. Yea we answered this,
sir.
INTERVIEWER: Did the POGIl method help you to love science?
LEARNER 3: Yes, because it helps to look at the question in a clever way. I will see
what I am given and what I must find. It helps me to see obvious things and use correct
method. Because the other learners will ask you why you used that formula? So, you
must explain.
INTERVIEWER: Do you think you shall perform better in the second test than in the
first test? Remember you wrote 2 tests?
LEARNER 2: I shall do better in the second test. The first one, eish I didn’t do well.
Now I know many things and I will do better.
Learner 4: The second test because I now understand and think about the answer
because of POGIL.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
312
Learner 1: I will do better in test two because I know that I wrote well. In test one I left
many blanks because I didn’t know. But now I know because we did the topic using
POGIL. (Facione P. A., 2009)
INTERVIEWER: So, you mean the POGIL method helped you to understand?
LEARNER 2: Yes, I can now reason and know how to find the limiting reactant.
INTERVIEWER: would you like to be taught using POGIL in the other science topics.
LEARNER 4: I think I like to be taught using POGIL only. Because after POGIL lessons
I understand all things. But if we don’t use POGIL I don’t understand when the teacher
is teaching.
INTERVIEWER: Okay can you explain that.
LEARNER 4: If they teach me using POGIL I will know how to approach things
because they have to have to teach me step-by-step like how POGIL explains. If they
teach me step by step, I will be able to understand other topics
INTERVIEWER: Do you expect to do further studies in science because of the use of
POGIL?
Learner 1: Yea I think I will be able to do engineering because by using POGIL I will
pass
Learner 3: I will pass and do medicine. Because POGIL will give me high passes.
Learner 5: I will become a dentist. My marks will be high because of POGIL.
INTERVIEWER: What about using POGIL in other subjects? Do you think it will be a
good idea?
LEARNER 1: I think it is good because POGIL. Mathematics has a lot of
measurements and objects. If we use POGIL I think it will be the easiest.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
313
Learner 4: I think if we use POGIL in mathematics our marks will go up. At the moment,
the mathematics marks are the lowest. Many people pass all the other subjects. But
mathematics…. Eish.
Interviewer: Okay boys and girls. Thank you for your time.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
314
Appendix 18: Learners’ focus group interview school B
INTERVIEWER: Okay good morning
Learners: Morning sir
INTERVIEWER: Yes, how are you?
Learners: Fine thanks, and, how are you?
INTERVIEWER: I am fine. Yes, today I want to interview you about the POGIL lessons
that we had last time I came here. Eh, you have been taught using POGIL. What can
you comment about the method? OK
LEARNER 1: The method was good. (Mamombe A, Kazeni M, & de Villiers R, 2016)
INTERVIEWER: Okay
LEARNER 1: That method it can help me to approach things in a different way. The
method was useful because it shows you how to solve a problem step-by-step, and
we understand better when doing that.
INTERVIEWER: Okay, and you?
LEARNER 2: POGIL method I think it’s the simplest method because you understand
better. Because it has many examples so you will understand.2
INTERVIEWER: Okay
LEARNER 3: POGIL method was phenomenal because I did manage to analyse which
method do the cars need.
INTERVIEWER: Okay. Alright. Can you say why you say you understand science
better? You said you understand better?
L1: Yes. Because before that POGIL method I was not aware of how to approach
things. But when using that method, (POGIL) I am aware of how to approach things
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
315
and how to solve problems that leads me to understand science better, and also
improves my reasoning capacity.
INTERVIEWER: Alright, anyone else?
INTERVIEWER: I think you spoke about that there are many examples in POGIL
activities. How do examples help you to understand science better?
LEARNER 2: The examples give me a clue on how to approach that particular
question.
INTERVIEWER: okay our next question is how has the POGIL method made you to
reason better? In what sense has it made you to reason better?
LEARNER 2: Because the method and the examples are more easier.
INTERVIEWER: they are more easier, so they help you to reason. Did the POGIL
method help you to love science?
LEARNER 3: Yes, because it helps to analyse about the things of nature and it helps
in future when I want to build something like a vehicle I will be having some knowledge
about building a vehicle.
INTERVIEWER: Okay. Because you know about the parts and how many of each is
needed. Now how about in science when you are balancing equation of reaction do
you see the relationship between building a car and building a chemical product?
LEARNER 1: Yes. You realize that there are also reactants and limiting reactants also.
So it also applies in real life where you have to build a car. Because you may find that
you have a certain number of engines. Let’s say the number of engines it the reactant
and the bodies of the car are the limiting reactant.
INTERVIEWER: Okay. So, you have understood about the cars. Where do you think
you can now work comfortably? As a job after school. Where can you apply it?
LEARNER 1: As an aircraft engineer, mechanical engineer.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
316
INTERVIEWER: even also in also in consumer studies like at KFC they should know
how many drumsticks or other parts of chicken . (Ausubel D . , 1978)
INTERVIEWER: do you think you shall perform better in the second test than in the
first test? Remember you wrote 2 tests?
LEARNER 2 We will perform better in the second test. Because in the first test we
didn’t have knowledge but in the second test we did have knowledge about what is
going to happen.
INTERVIEWER: So, you mean the POGIL method helped you to understand?
LEARNER 2: yes
INTERVIEWER: would you like to be taught using POGIL in the other science topics.
LEARNER 3: Yes (Michael, 2006)
INTERVIEWER: Okay can you explain that.
LEARNER 3: If they teach me using POGIL next time I will know how to approach
things because they have to have to teach me step-by-step like how POGIl explains.
If they teach me step by step, I will be able to understand other topics
INTERVIEWER: Yah, than to just rush through?
LEARNER 3: yes
INTERVIEWER: do you expect to do further studies in science because of the use of
POGIl?
INTERVIEWER: Yes, you already spoke about mechanical engineering
INTERVIEWER: what about using POGIL in other subjects? Do you think it will be a
good idea?
LEARNER 1: I think it is good because POGIL. The things that we need in
mathematics we need to measure some materials of a vehicle like for the car to be
suitable and stable.
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
317
Appendix 19: Ethics approval letter for data collection
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
318
Appendix 20: GDE research approval letter for data collection
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
320
Appendix 21: Lesson observation schedule
Activities of the teacher
1. Introduction of lesson
2. Guidance of learners
3. Control of class
4. Time management
5. Attention to groups in need of help.
6. Facilitation role
7. Subject knowledge
Learners’ activities
3. Attention to the teacher.
4. Reading of worksheet
5. Working with the assigned group
6. Excitement
7. Participation
8. Asking for help
©© UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPrreettoorriiaa
Top Related